I met Kerry when he was in the VVAW thirty or so years ago and he said back then that he has been running for POTUS since he was eight and that he went to NAM to get his "ticket punched" politically.
When the populous went against the war he decided he was against the war so he could run for the House (it didn't work), Sound Familiar?
I've lived in Massachusetts for all of Kerry's political life and he has been a lousy DA, Lieutenant Governor and really lousy Senator. I don't vote for him for Senator why would I vote for him for POTUS?
Bush is the guy who will stop the terrorists from hitting us again. I
Thank you for providing a clear and concise nonbiased article on these candidates. Everything out there seems to have a spin on it these days, but by only showing basic quotes you have managed to inform without influence. Please keep up the excellent work.
One tiny mentionof the imperial nature of the Wolfowitz-inspired foreign adventurism was noted in Cheney's Xmas card. There is more. Next case Iran. Also note the continued support of a whole pack of small-time evil dictators who mostly sit upon the world's oil reserves. We pay them for the oil, they buy weapons (of both individual and mass destruction) and their people turn to terrorism in their fight for freedom.
Perfect prescription for eternal war and an eternal War President. Bush is immortal isn't he? Or does he just think of himself as the Sun God?
If bush wins get ready for the official legalization of the aristocracy. [Currently only our defacto economic system.] Four more years of Bush and the US will make Somoza'a Nicaragua look like Democracy in Action.
whodathunk it would take a cool niche magazine like nerve to put something this commonsensical together. good job, nerve people. i like the expanding coverage.
I'm a loyal Nerve reader and I'm going to vote for Bush. I don't see the problem with that. If liberals are supposed to be so "open minded and excepting of others", why isn't it ok to vote for Bush? I don't think he's going to take my butt-plug away. *blushs* I do think Nerve should keep it's nose out of politics though, cause, when your writing about sex, everyone is happy. When you write about politics, your going to piss someone off.
To all the pussy's out there that say that their going to move to another country if Bush wins: Grow up. Aside from the war on terror, both these guys are the same. If Kerry wins, I'll cry like a little girl for a day or two, then I'll get the fuck over it and support him. I'm voting for Bush but I don't hate Kerry. You people that loath Bush need to take a long look in the mirror. It's not healthy to hate like this.
I'm a Nerve reader, and I'm voting for Bush as well. In my opinion, and by looking at both candidate's records, Bush is BY FAR the best man for the job at this time. I don't believe Kerry will fight the war on terror the way it needs to be fought. Granted, I don't think we are fighting right now in a way that we will win either, but its a start. We must stop fighting wars in a "politically correct" way and constantly pulling punches. Kerry does not project an image of national strength or resolve. Weather you agree or disagree with Bush's decisions, he certainly stands by them and has a vision. He has a love for America that he projects, and does not change that in the face of opposition here or oversease. THAT is a quality of a LEADER.
I must say as a conservative Republican who has been a member of this site since 1995, This is one of the most non-partisan un-biased pieces I have seen from any outlet this election year. And coming from a decidedly left leaning outlet no less. Bravo!
to all you cliche', afraid, ignorant, racist, sexist, one-liner, ethnocentric, closed-mided, tommy-hillfiger-wearing fucks who vote for bush.... no crying when your water is thick with mercury, you find yourself with little rights, Halliburton is your master and freedom is given away in the name of "patriotism". but then again, it's people like you who long for this type of dictatorship- someone to think for you... to tell you what to do and how to do it.
the united states lags behind all other industrial countries in so many areas. it is time to educate yourselves about our REAL position in the world as well as the history of iraq and the middle east. the "terrorism" issue would make more sense if you stupid idiots would stop replaying 9/11 in your little brains and learn what is REALLY going on.
Hey cia,
We don't need your fear and hate mongering. Bush is not standing over the Hudson spoon mercury in your water. Stick to the issues and stop reading to us from Michael Moore's web site. Speaking of people that can't speak for them selfs....sheesh.
It is interesting to me that the Anti Bush folks like CIA only resort to character assassination and name calling in there responses to those of us who support Bush.
All I can say is wow. I did not have time to read it all.. but it was very informative.. love the way it is organized and how facts are noted and from where. I have to say it was sorta bashing Bush pretty harsh.. I have not really know what to vote yet.. so I have been looking hard at how I fit into the whole republican democrate thing.. and when I read that I sorta tried to be non judmental. I have to say . .. Kerry .. welll lets put it this way.. Bush needed about 20 more years practice before he got that job. I was never sure if he sould have it.. at the time, considering the issues he had to deal with I thought he did okay. But his time is up.. it is someone esle turn. I only agree with half of what he believes in.. if that. I dont believe in everything Kery does.. but I believe he has worked his whole life for this and that is 90% of what makes him more qualified. I do believe he is not trying to be a bully like George has been since the beginning.. I do believe he is a bit minuplative.. but overall.. and reading this helped.. I do believe Kerry has the potential.. much more than bush.. to sorta start over again for the US and maybe fix some of the things that are so wrong. I will pray about it.. and just hope he has the streght to finsh half of the stuff he thinks he can do. We will have to see (should he win). Go Kerry. (please). Win. (man.. sometimes I wish there were more choices .. and there are.. but I feel I need to pick of two .. for now).. we will see as time goes. Last thing I want.. is a radical in the whitehouse.
hey. I did want to also say.. no matter who wins.. there are still going to be problems.. and sadly.. most people will bitch and blame the person in charge.. or the system. Sadly.. .. we are doing better than most people give us credit for. Too many people just dont try hard enought to take care of their own responsiblities. And the people laughing at us.. sadly.. live in a sad sad world.. and have nothing better to do than avoid thier own misirble life. I do believe Kerry is the better man for the job.. the the issue is .. who will get us to believe in us.. and our future. And is that posible in 4 years. What will it take to unite the country.. hopefully not another 911. honestly.. I am clueless.. but still have some faith.. just curious.. how long it will take. 20 years, 100 years... 500 years. I dont know.. I really dont. And as bad as it is now.. we have it better than anyone one ever did.. since the begining of this country birth. Anyways.. I will enjoy life and try to do my part.. but not bitching and doing my best to not be part of the problem.
From the CBS News site: Speaking (on May 1, 2003), President Bush told the world, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
Behind him was a banner saying "Mission Accomplished":
"We put it up. We made the sign. But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, 'Mission Accomplished' ... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein."
Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary
I respect anyones right the free speech. I wish I had the time to shoot down every single point of this Kerry Ad that you have run on Nerve. I could not disagree more with the opinions expressed as what you call fact.
I will not stay a member of Nerve for this article.
thanks for the breakdown of the facts on the Presidential race. It was well done except for one thing - I think your facts could use a little more checking on Bushes Environmental record. The Orwellian "Clear skies Initiative deserves to be debunked, because when the facts are checked - it's an outright lie to put the words clear and sky in the same phrase when discussing this initiative. please see the facts below.
Thanks for the article, a good concise summary of our choice. Bush has been an embarrassment to our country, and disastrous for democracy, the economy, education, the environment, civil discourse and just about anything he has put a hand on. In addition, he has contributed immensely to the dumbing down of America, knowing full well that an uninformed and uneducated populace is easy to fool and manipulate.
It is sad to see how uninformed the people who support the war in Iraq are. They fumble trying to justify this war with the war on terror while every piece of evidence that has come out testifies to the contrary. Yes, it now is a hot bed for terrorist since it has become the recruiting poster for them. It
Some of you Kerry supporters need to let off the crack pipe. The truth is we are in a world war with 150 MILLION ENEMIES! Our all volunteer army vastly supports Bush. How many do you think will re-up for a New commander-in chief they don't support? Right now there is a waiting list to get into most branches of our armed services.
Kerry says he will increase our forces by 40,000 Troops. If he looses existing forces due to attrition ala Jimmy Carter and the line to serve disappears. What will Kerry do?
He has only one choice - the draft. I can hear it now. Kerry: "I was against the draft, before I was for it". So if you vote for Kerry and get drafted, you were warned.
thanks for the article, good job! i knew that when Bush got elected that we'd be in a world of shit, but when 9/11 happened, i felt better about him. I was pumped about the war because i thought that Saddam was going to appempt another 9/11 on us. after getting to iraq and being there for a year, just to find out that we were over there for NOTHING, seeing my friends and fellow soldiers die for NOTHING made me anxious about election day. i read one comment about soldiers backing our commander and chief - don't fool yourself! ...for every shot that whizzed by my ear - FUCK BUSH.
bottom line: if your number one concern is national security, you should vote for Kerry today. if your concerns lie elsewhere, you should vote for Kerry. Smart Republicans are voting for Kerry; the dumb ones are so caught up in the principle of consistency that they are unable to see the reality of the world today. Here is the reality: force is not enough to stop terrorism. What no one wants to say, but students of history know, if that terrorism works. The israelis used terrorism against the british and got what they wanted; the algerians terrorized the french and got their independence. Military force will never ever end terrorism. the only thing that will is changing the conditions that cause people to be so desperate that they are willing to kill themselves to stop what they believe to be an evil force. Look at Israel. They have not lacked force, conviction, or military power in their multi-decade attempt to end terrorism in their region. Israel is truly a cautionary tale -- polls have indicated that the public has wanted to withdraw settlements and find peaceful solutions for years but at the same time they have voted in hawkish leaders. Why the disconnect? Fear. If we re-elect bush, we will be headed down the same misguided path. Diplomacy, and a sensitivity to the real issues behind the conflict in the middle east COMBINED with a willingness to use force when necessary is what will make this country safer. All great american leaders on both sides of the isle have been sensitive the psychology of weak nations, attuned to the subtleties of diplomacy. Read the Rise of Theaodre Roosevelt and Theodore Rex -- this guy was among the most hawkish American presidents and he would be AGHAST but the diplomatic stupidity of the current administration. there is only one choice, folks. Let's get out there and vote !
I agree with some of the commenters below: I don't quite get how a nervester can be a Dubya supporter. 1) We have a Justice Dept. that's been aggressive about pursuing anti-obscenity cases, inclusive not just of porn but sites like this. 2) We have an increasingly-activist FCC that's censoring the airwaves, and has an eye on cable television as well. 3) We'll likely have a Supreme Court vacancy coming up, which means regressive legislation like the CDA (Communications Deceny Act) will have a better chance of holding up to court scrutiny under Bush. 4) The sitting prez doesn't support reproductive rights, which sorta goes back to point 3, doesn't it?
I find the feedback in the forum very amusing, especially considering the outcome of the election. Especially considering that the only states Kerry won were in New England, the West Coast, and a few states in the Great Lakes region. Bush won states in the South, the North, the Mid-Atlantic, West, and Midwest. The Republicans also picked up seats in the House and the Senate. Now, by no means is Bush perfect. He has made a lot of mistakes (like the "No Child Left Behind" program and his relaxation of environmental enforcement). But it appears that a majority of the country disagrees with the myopic world inhabited by the Democratic party. Yes, you may really, REALLY hate Bush, but feeling strongly one way or the other does not get your vote to count more. Maybe you should turn in to Fox news every once in a while. Because, although it is difficult to admit, there are two sides to every story. For example, how many stories have we heard about the new schools and hospitals and mosques that have been built in Iraq? How many stories have we heard about people that had been oppressed returning to work and school in Iraq? How many times have we heard that the majority of Iraquis are happy that the US is there, and that they have a positive outlook on the future? What...you haven't heard those things? All you have heard is that the WMD's weren't found...that soldiers are dying...that civilian casualties are mounting? Well, I do not deny that those things are probably true, but they are not the only stories to come out of Iraq, even if they are the stories dominating our media. So before you all move to Canada, try to look outside your group of liberal friends. Try to look outside your typical liberal media outlets. Try to look at things like the majority if the country looks at them. And when you do, you will probably find that the sky is not going to fall, and that you probably have not been getting the whole story. Because if you did get the whole story, Bush would look a lot less like an evil dictator out to personally ruin your life, and more like the President of the United States.
yes, well, to TSD below, remember that being in the majority (narrowly) says nothing about the correctness of your position. remember that 1 out of 3 people who voted for Bush thought that WMDs were found in Iraq. Polls have shown that the more people watch Fox News, the less correctly they answer basic factual questions about what is going on in the world. There is no doubt in my mind that removing Saddam is good for the people of Iraq, and I agree that the benefits to the people of Iraq are understated. Saddam murdered probably north of 100,000 of his own people in the last 10 years; that rate of killing is not measured against the current rate. However, the Bush administration did not say we were invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons, and if this were our objective, there is a long list of places where our several hundred billion dollar investment could have created for more improvement of quality of life. The bottom line is that Americans are horribly ill-informed -- they have a very foggy view of the world outside, to the extent that they know it at all, and they are voting based on natural animal instincts towards revenge and safety. Unfortunately, the votes they cast 4 years ago and again this month have the opposite affect -- they make the world less safe. The vast majority of the world understands the dynamics at work, and they, like those of us on the coasts, are the mercy of an undereducated, and misinformed collection of people in the middle of this country. It's scary, and incredibly frustrating, and that's what you are hearing from the majority of college graduates in this country. This website is read largely by educated people, hence the "bias".
Ted, I think you raise some interesting issues. For example, I recognize that being in the majority does not always make one right. I also agree that the majority of Americans are misinformed (watching an episode of Jaywalking on the Tonight Show makes we worry about the future of this country more than any presidential election ever will). I also recognize that Bush did not enter Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Rather, his reasons included intelligence that linked Saddam to the WMD's and Al Qaeda, and the proposition that UN Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 authorized an invasion of Iraq. While the intelligence did not prove to be entirely accurate, I do feel that the administration (as well as Tony Blair in Britain) had a good faith belief that it was true and accurate. However, there are a few presumptions that you have made that I do not accept. First, I do not accept that Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. I would argue that groups like Al Quaeda make the world a dangerous place. Hamas makes the world a dangerous place. Saddam Hussein made the world a dangerous place. To the extent that our country has the courage to stand up and fight these groups will, in the long run, make the world a safer place. Second, I disagree with your presumption that this country is at "the mercy of an undereducated, and misinformed collection of people in the middle of this country. It's scary, and incredibly frustrating, and that's what you are hearing from the majority of college graduates in this country." The reason I disagree with that proposition is because it is simply not true. If you check out CNN.com, you will find that a majority of college graduates actually voted for Bush.
(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html) So apparently, this country is at the mercy of the educated. And again, I recognize that being in the majority does not make one right. But it is nice to know that I am in a majority of educated people.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding within today's left that defines much of the anti GWB sentiment. And that is that all conservatives must be backwoods rednecks. This is simply a nice safe shelter to retreat to when they can not fathom why someone would vote for Bush.
Well, some of us who happen to know a whole hell of a lot about the US' foreign policy situation right now happen to think that Bush was the best choice to lead the imperative reshaping of the middle east.
And one of the most outrageous frustrations on our part are the constant intentionally misleading statements by the left. Like, Bush is weak on education (Federal spending on education has gone up 58% under Bush, according to factcheck.org). We did not, as Kerry suggested, 'outsource' the Tora Bora campaign; our Special Operations Forces did what they are trained to do, and that is act as a Force Multiplier by training the indigenous peoples to fight for them.
What has happened is that suddenly a lot of people, who know very little about political science, military science, the operational and systemic capablities of the US intelligence community, or middle eastern politics, have suddenly become blog-ready pundits ready to critique every decision made by this lambasted administration.
Sure they've made mistakes - so what? No one expected them to get it right right off the bat! We're in a changing Threat Environment and our military, economy, social norms, etc., are all in a state of flux and transition. GWB is not perfect, nor is he the anti christ.
tsd -- you are quite right, apparently the majority of college graduates did vote for bush. that cnn poll also shows some pretty interesting data: 25% of those who voted (or answered the poll) describe themselves as born again christians / evanglists, and the 75% who do not describe themselves that way voted for kerry by a significant majority. its also interesting to see the correlation between household income and voting patterns -- the richer people are the more likely they are to vote to reduce their taxes (big surprise) by a considerable margin, and of course there is a strong correlation between education and wealth. with that in mind its pretty extraordinary that there wasn't a larger correlation between education and voting republican, but no matter. the more important point that you bring up, TSD, and skp below, is the question of what kind of leadership will make the world safer. i think its pretty clear, if you listen to experts in the CIA, the pentagon and the state department, that a large portion of them -- probably the majority by i can't prove this -- believe that GWB has made the world far more dangerous. Most of these people are hawks, and i am a hawk -- I am someone who believes that peace lovers rarely calculate the risks of doing nothing. i believe the world out there is dangerous and full of self-interest, and peace in only possible in the presence of overwhelming force. anyone who believes that people are naturally peaceful has not studied history -- studies of tribal bronze age communities all over the world as shown that the prehistoric world was dramatically more dangerous than the current one (see The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker) -- indeed something like 25% of males are killed in war or infighting in the average tribal community. if you look at recorded history, the last century, despite WWI and WWII had the lowest incidence of killing on a per capita basis in the history of the world. in other words, left to their own devises, people kill each other. we need a powerful military to keep people from doing so. Hopefully, dear reader, you now believe that i am not some kind of liberal pacifist. having said all of that, fighting terrorism is a brand new game, different from past struggles, and the bottom line is that poor people have a lot more power than they did before. this is both because of access to explosives and guns and such, and also because of the power of the media. as i mention below, terrorist in the last 50 years have a pretty strong record of having eventually gotten what they wanted -- there NO evidence that fighting terrorism with nothing but brute force will do anything other than increase the terrorism. furthermore, the opinon of the world matters, small nations have egos, and insulting the rest of the world is a great way to decrease the likelihood of success. a smarter leader would have gone into iraq a year later with the support of the UN and world, and adequate troops as recommended by the pentagon and state department and everyone else not drinking the coolaid. this is the prevailing opinion, i believe, within the pentagon (i know some people there) and cia. GWB made this situation much harder than it had to be, and this was AFTER he was reigned in by Tony Blair and Colin Powell. Indeed, the history books will show GWB to be one of the most inept statesmen in the history of this nation -- and this is from the perspective of a hawk.
Commentarium (39 Comments)
nice article
thanks
dont be stupid
vote kerry
Thank you so much for this! Its hard to articulate why I think Kerry should be voted in over Bush, but you've helped like no other.
You might want to do some more fact checking. Under "vice squad" you claim that Kerry was "Raised Southern Baptist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry
Cancel last comment - I see what you meant by "vice squad." Doh.
Excuse me, but since when is Nerve a political entity?
I want more stories about S-E-X, how about some FICTION too --- and I don't mean liberals masturbating over John Kerry. Come on, people!
Thanks folks!
Nice summary!
I'll definitely be voting for Bush (Again)!
I met Kerry when he was in the VVAW thirty or so years ago and he said back then that he has been running for POTUS since he was eight and that he went to NAM to get his "ticket punched" politically.
When the populous went against the war he decided he was against the war so he could run for the House (it didn't work), Sound Familiar?
I've lived in Massachusetts for all of Kerry's political life and he has been a lousy DA, Lieutenant Governor and really lousy Senator. I don't vote for him for Senator why would I vote for him for POTUS?
Bush is the guy who will stop the terrorists from hitting us again. I
Thank you for providing a clear and concise nonbiased article on these candidates. Everything out there seems to have a spin on it these days, but by only showing basic quotes you have managed to inform without influence. Please keep up the excellent work.
how can a nerve reader vote bush?
mindboggling.
One tiny mentionof the imperial nature of the Wolfowitz-inspired foreign adventurism was noted in Cheney's Xmas card. There is more. Next case Iran. Also note the continued support of a whole pack of small-time evil dictators who mostly sit upon the world's oil reserves. We pay them for the oil, they buy weapons (of both individual and mass destruction) and their people turn to terrorism in their fight for freedom.
Perfect prescription for eternal war and an eternal War President. Bush is immortal isn't he? Or does he just think of himself as the Sun God?
If bush wins get ready for the official legalization of the aristocracy. [Currently only our defacto economic system.] Four more years of Bush and the US will make Somoza'a Nicaragua look like Democracy in Action.
whodathunk it would take a cool niche magazine like nerve to put something this commonsensical together. good job, nerve people. i like the expanding coverage.
I'm a loyal Nerve reader and I'm going to vote for Bush. I don't see the problem with that. If liberals are supposed to be so "open minded and excepting of others", why isn't it ok to vote for Bush? I don't think he's going to take my butt-plug away. *blushs* I do think Nerve should keep it's nose out of politics though, cause, when your writing about sex, everyone is happy. When you write about politics, your going to piss someone off.
To all the pussy's out there that say that their going to move to another country if Bush wins: Grow up. Aside from the war on terror, both these guys are the same. If Kerry wins, I'll cry like a little girl for a day or two, then I'll get the fuck over it and support him. I'm voting for Bush but I don't hate Kerry. You people that loath Bush need to take a long look in the mirror. It's not healthy to hate like this.
I'm a Nerve reader, and I'm voting for Bush as well. In my opinion, and by looking at both candidate's records, Bush is BY FAR the best man for the job at this time. I don't believe Kerry will fight the war on terror the way it needs to be fought. Granted, I don't think we are fighting right now in a way that we will win either, but its a start. We must stop fighting wars in a "politically correct" way and constantly pulling punches. Kerry does not project an image of national strength or resolve. Weather you agree or disagree with Bush's decisions, he certainly stands by them and has a vision. He has a love for America that he projects, and does not change that in the face of opposition here or oversease. THAT is a quality of a LEADER.
I must say as a conservative Republican who has been a member of this site since 1995, This is one of the most non-partisan un-biased pieces I have seen from any outlet this election year. And coming from a decidedly left leaning outlet no less. Bravo!
to all you cliche', afraid, ignorant, racist, sexist, one-liner, ethnocentric, closed-mided, tommy-hillfiger-wearing fucks who vote for bush.... no crying when your water is thick with mercury, you find yourself with little rights, Halliburton is your master and freedom is given away in the name of "patriotism". but then again, it's people like you who long for this type of dictatorship- someone to think for you... to tell you what to do and how to do it.
the united states lags behind all other industrial countries in so many areas. it is time to educate yourselves about our REAL position in the world as well as the history of iraq and the middle east. the "terrorism" issue would make more sense if you stupid idiots would stop replaying 9/11 in your little brains and learn what is REALLY going on.
Hey cia,
We don't need your fear and hate mongering. Bush is not standing over the Hudson spoon mercury in your water. Stick to the issues and stop reading to us from Michael Moore's web site. Speaking of people that can't speak for them selfs....sheesh.
It is interesting to me that the Anti Bush folks like CIA only resort to character assassination and name calling in there responses to those of us who support Bush.
CIA Can
Thank you thank you thank you
All I can say is wow. I did not have time to read it all.. but it was very informative.. love the way it is organized and how facts are noted and from where. I have to say it was sorta bashing Bush pretty harsh.. I have not really know what to vote yet.. so I have been looking hard at how I fit into the whole republican democrate thing.. and when I read that I sorta tried to be non judmental. I have to say . .. Kerry .. welll lets put it this way.. Bush needed about 20 more years practice before he got that job. I was never sure if he sould have it.. at the time, considering the issues he had to deal with I thought he did okay. But his time is up.. it is someone esle turn. I only agree with half of what he believes in.. if that. I dont believe in everything Kery does.. but I believe he has worked his whole life for this and that is 90% of what makes him more qualified. I do believe he is not trying to be a bully like George has been since the beginning.. I do believe he is a bit minuplative.. but overall.. and reading this helped.. I do believe Kerry has the potential.. much more than bush.. to sorta start over again for the US and maybe fix some of the things that are so wrong. I will pray about it.. and just hope he has the streght to finsh half of the stuff he thinks he can do. We will have to see (should he win). Go Kerry. (please). Win. (man.. sometimes I wish there were more choices .. and there are.. but I feel I need to pick of two .. for now).. we will see as time goes. Last thing I want.. is a radical in the whitehouse.
hey. I did want to also say.. no matter who wins.. there are still going to be problems.. and sadly.. most people will bitch and blame the person in charge.. or the system. Sadly.. .. we are doing better than most people give us credit for. Too many people just dont try hard enought to take care of their own responsiblities. And the people laughing at us.. sadly.. live in a sad sad world.. and have nothing better to do than avoid thier own misirble life. I do believe Kerry is the better man for the job.. the the issue is .. who will get us to believe in us.. and our future. And is that posible in 4 years. What will it take to unite the country.. hopefully not another 911. honestly.. I am clueless.. but still have some faith.. just curious.. how long it will take. 20 years, 100 years... 500 years. I dont know.. I really dont. And as bad as it is now.. we have it better than anyone one ever did.. since the begining of this country birth. Anyways.. I will enjoy life and try to do my part.. but not bitching and doing my best to not be part of the problem.
Your fact aren't very factual. For one Bush never said mission accompolished, and there are others
From the CBS News site: Speaking (on May 1, 2003), President Bush told the world, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
Behind him was a banner saying "Mission Accomplished":
"We put it up. We made the sign. But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, 'Mission Accomplished' ... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein."
Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/politics/main614998.shtml
I respect anyones right the free speech. I wish I had the time to shoot down every single point of this Kerry Ad that you have run on Nerve. I could not disagree more with the opinions expressed as what you call fact.
I will not stay a member of Nerve for this article.
thanks for the breakdown of the facts on the Presidential race. It was well done except for one thing - I think your facts could use a little more checking on Bushes Environmental record. The Orwellian "Clear skies Initiative deserves to be debunked, because when the facts are checked - it's an outright lie to put the words clear and sky in the same phrase when discussing this initiative. please see the facts below.
Facts About the Bush Administration
Thanks for the article, a good concise summary of our choice. Bush has been an embarrassment to our country, and disastrous for democracy, the economy, education, the environment, civil discourse and just about anything he has put a hand on. In addition, he has contributed immensely to the dumbing down of America, knowing full well that an uninformed and uneducated populace is easy to fool and manipulate.
It is sad to see how uninformed the people who support the war in Iraq are. They fumble trying to justify this war with the war on terror while every piece of evidence that has come out testifies to the contrary. Yes, it now is a hot bed for terrorist since it has become the recruiting poster for them. It
Some of you Kerry supporters need to let off the crack pipe. The truth is we are in a world war with 150 MILLION ENEMIES! Our all volunteer army vastly supports Bush. How many do you think will re-up for a New commander-in chief they don't support? Right now there is a waiting list to get into most branches of our armed services.
Kerry says he will increase our forces by 40,000 Troops. If he looses existing forces due to attrition ala Jimmy Carter and the line to serve disappears. What will Kerry do?
He has only one choice - the draft. I can hear it now. Kerry: "I was against the draft, before I was for it". So if you vote for Kerry and get drafted, you were warned.
thanks for the article, good job! i knew that when Bush got elected that we'd be in a world of shit, but when 9/11 happened, i felt better about him. I was pumped about the war because i thought that Saddam was going to appempt another 9/11 on us. after getting to iraq and being there for a year, just to find out that we were over there for NOTHING, seeing my friends and fellow soldiers die for NOTHING made me anxious about election day. i read one comment about soldiers backing our commander and chief - don't fool yourself! ...for every shot that whizzed by my ear - FUCK BUSH.
Wow, the people who still believe that Iraq is about terrorism ARE mushrooms, and XX post is a prime example. Anyone that by now hasn
The chart indicates that Bush voted consistently against abortion rights in the Congress. George W. Bush never served in Congress; only his daddy did.
Just thought that you might want to fix that.
-Joe Neikirk
JPN - The "Vice Squad" column refers to the running-mates; Cheney is the one who has consistently voted against abortion rights.
bottom line: if your number one concern is national security, you should vote for Kerry today. if your concerns lie elsewhere, you should vote for Kerry. Smart Republicans are voting for Kerry; the dumb ones are so caught up in the principle of consistency that they are unable to see the reality of the world today. Here is the reality: force is not enough to stop terrorism. What no one wants to say, but students of history know, if that terrorism works. The israelis used terrorism against the british and got what they wanted; the algerians terrorized the french and got their independence. Military force will never ever end terrorism. the only thing that will is changing the conditions that cause people to be so desperate that they are willing to kill themselves to stop what they believe to be an evil force. Look at Israel. They have not lacked force, conviction, or military power in their multi-decade attempt to end terrorism in their region. Israel is truly a cautionary tale -- polls have indicated that the public has wanted to withdraw settlements and find peaceful solutions for years but at the same time they have voted in hawkish leaders. Why the disconnect? Fear. If we re-elect bush, we will be headed down the same misguided path. Diplomacy, and a sensitivity to the real issues behind the conflict in the middle east COMBINED with a willingness to use force when necessary is what will make this country safer. All great american leaders on both sides of the isle have been sensitive the psychology of weak nations, attuned to the subtleties of diplomacy. Read the Rise of Theaodre Roosevelt and Theodore Rex -- this guy was among the most hawkish American presidents and he would be AGHAST but the diplomatic stupidity of the current administration. there is only one choice, folks. Let's get out there and vote !
I agree with some of the commenters below: I don't quite get how a nervester can be a Dubya supporter. 1) We have a Justice Dept. that's been aggressive about pursuing anti-obscenity cases, inclusive not just of porn but sites like this. 2) We have an increasingly-activist FCC that's censoring the airwaves, and has an eye on cable television as well. 3) We'll likely have a Supreme Court vacancy coming up, which means regressive legislation like the CDA (Communications Deceny Act) will have a better chance of holding up to court scrutiny under Bush. 4) The sitting prez doesn't support reproductive rights, which sorta goes back to point 3, doesn't it?
I find the feedback in the forum very amusing, especially considering the outcome of the election. Especially considering that the only states Kerry won were in New England, the West Coast, and a few states in the Great Lakes region. Bush won states in the South, the North, the Mid-Atlantic, West, and Midwest. The Republicans also picked up seats in the House and the Senate. Now, by no means is Bush perfect. He has made a lot of mistakes (like the "No Child Left Behind" program and his relaxation of environmental enforcement). But it appears that a majority of the country disagrees with the myopic world inhabited by the Democratic party. Yes, you may really, REALLY hate Bush, but feeling strongly one way or the other does not get your vote to count more. Maybe you should turn in to Fox news every once in a while. Because, although it is difficult to admit, there are two sides to every story. For example, how many stories have we heard about the new schools and hospitals and mosques that have been built in Iraq? How many stories have we heard about people that had been oppressed returning to work and school in Iraq? How many times have we heard that the majority of Iraquis are happy that the US is there, and that they have a positive outlook on the future? What...you haven't heard those things? All you have heard is that the WMD's weren't found...that soldiers are dying...that civilian casualties are mounting? Well, I do not deny that those things are probably true, but they are not the only stories to come out of Iraq, even if they are the stories dominating our media. So before you all move to Canada, try to look outside your group of liberal friends. Try to look outside your typical liberal media outlets. Try to look at things like the majority if the country looks at them. And when you do, you will probably find that the sky is not going to fall, and that you probably have not been getting the whole story. Because if you did get the whole story, Bush would look a lot less like an evil dictator out to personally ruin your life, and more like the President of the United States.
America is now split right down the middle;one half hating the other:This is Bush's legacy;A country at war with itself.
yes, well, to TSD below, remember that being in the majority (narrowly) says nothing about the correctness of your position. remember that 1 out of 3 people who voted for Bush thought that WMDs were found in Iraq. Polls have shown that the more people watch Fox News, the less correctly they answer basic factual questions about what is going on in the world. There is no doubt in my mind that removing Saddam is good for the people of Iraq, and I agree that the benefits to the people of Iraq are understated. Saddam murdered probably north of 100,000 of his own people in the last 10 years; that rate of killing is not measured against the current rate. However, the Bush administration did not say we were invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons, and if this were our objective, there is a long list of places where our several hundred billion dollar investment could have created for more improvement of quality of life. The bottom line is that Americans are horribly ill-informed -- they have a very foggy view of the world outside, to the extent that they know it at all, and they are voting based on natural animal instincts towards revenge and safety. Unfortunately, the votes they cast 4 years ago and again this month have the opposite affect -- they make the world less safe. The vast majority of the world understands the dynamics at work, and they, like those of us on the coasts, are the mercy of an undereducated, and misinformed collection of people in the middle of this country. It's scary, and incredibly frustrating, and that's what you are hearing from the majority of college graduates in this country. This website is read largely by educated people, hence the "bias".
Ted, I think you raise some interesting issues. For example, I recognize that being in the majority does not always make one right. I also agree that the majority of Americans are misinformed (watching an episode of Jaywalking on the Tonight Show makes we worry about the future of this country more than any presidential election ever will). I also recognize that Bush did not enter Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Rather, his reasons included intelligence that linked Saddam to the WMD's and Al Qaeda, and the proposition that UN Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 authorized an invasion of Iraq. While the intelligence did not prove to be entirely accurate, I do feel that the administration (as well as Tony Blair in Britain) had a good faith belief that it was true and accurate. However, there are a few presumptions that you have made that I do not accept. First, I do not accept that Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. I would argue that groups like Al Quaeda make the world a dangerous place. Hamas makes the world a dangerous place. Saddam Hussein made the world a dangerous place. To the extent that our country has the courage to stand up and fight these groups will, in the long run, make the world a safer place. Second, I disagree with your presumption that this country is at "the mercy of an undereducated, and misinformed collection of people in the middle of this country. It's scary, and incredibly frustrating, and that's what you are hearing from the majority of college graduates in this country." The reason I disagree with that proposition is because it is simply not true. If you check out CNN.com, you will find that a majority of college graduates actually voted for Bush.
(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/epolls.0.html) So apparently, this country is at the mercy of the educated. And again, I recognize that being in the majority does not make one right. But it is nice to know that I am in a majority of educated people.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding within today's left that defines much of the anti GWB sentiment. And that is that all conservatives must be backwoods rednecks. This is simply a nice safe shelter to retreat to when they can not fathom why someone would vote for Bush.
Well, some of us who happen to know a whole hell of a lot about the US' foreign policy situation right now happen to think that Bush was the best choice to lead the imperative reshaping of the middle east.
And one of the most outrageous frustrations on our part are the constant intentionally misleading statements by the left. Like, Bush is weak on education (Federal spending on education has gone up 58% under Bush, according to factcheck.org). We did not, as Kerry suggested, 'outsource' the Tora Bora campaign; our Special Operations Forces did what they are trained to do, and that is act as a Force Multiplier by training the indigenous peoples to fight for them.
What has happened is that suddenly a lot of people, who know very little about political science, military science, the operational and systemic capablities of the US intelligence community, or middle eastern politics, have suddenly become blog-ready pundits ready to critique every decision made by this lambasted administration.
Sure they've made mistakes - so what? No one expected them to get it right right off the bat! We're in a changing Threat Environment and our military, economy, social norms, etc., are all in a state of flux and transition. GWB is not perfect, nor is he the anti christ.
tsd -- you are quite right, apparently the majority of college graduates did vote for bush. that cnn poll also shows some pretty interesting data: 25% of those who voted (or answered the poll) describe themselves as born again christians / evanglists, and the 75% who do not describe themselves that way voted for kerry by a significant majority. its also interesting to see the correlation between household income and voting patterns -- the richer people are the more likely they are to vote to reduce their taxes (big surprise) by a considerable margin, and of course there is a strong correlation between education and wealth. with that in mind its pretty extraordinary that there wasn't a larger correlation between education and voting republican, but no matter. the more important point that you bring up, TSD, and skp below, is the question of what kind of leadership will make the world safer. i think its pretty clear, if you listen to experts in the CIA, the pentagon and the state department, that a large portion of them -- probably the majority by i can't prove this -- believe that GWB has made the world far more dangerous. Most of these people are hawks, and i am a hawk -- I am someone who believes that peace lovers rarely calculate the risks of doing nothing. i believe the world out there is dangerous and full of self-interest, and peace in only possible in the presence of overwhelming force. anyone who believes that people are naturally peaceful has not studied history -- studies of tribal bronze age communities all over the world as shown that the prehistoric world was dramatically more dangerous than the current one (see The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker) -- indeed something like 25% of males are killed in war or infighting in the average tribal community. if you look at recorded history, the last century, despite WWI and WWII had the lowest incidence of killing on a per capita basis in the history of the world. in other words, left to their own devises, people kill each other. we need a powerful military to keep people from doing so. Hopefully, dear reader, you now believe that i am not some kind of liberal pacifist. having said all of that, fighting terrorism is a brand new game, different from past struggles, and the bottom line is that poor people have a lot more power than they did before. this is both because of access to explosives and guns and such, and also because of the power of the media. as i mention below, terrorist in the last 50 years have a pretty strong record of having eventually gotten what they wanted -- there NO evidence that fighting terrorism with nothing but brute force will do anything other than increase the terrorism. furthermore, the opinon of the world matters, small nations have egos, and insulting the rest of the world is a great way to decrease the likelihood of success. a smarter leader would have gone into iraq a year later with the support of the UN and world, and adequate troops as recommended by the pentagon and state department and everyone else not drinking the coolaid. this is the prevailing opinion, i believe, within the pentagon (i know some people there) and cia. GWB made this situation much harder than it had to be, and this was AFTER he was reigned in by Tony Blair and Colin Powell. Indeed, the history books will show GWB to be one of the most inept statesmen in the history of this nation -- and this is from the perspective of a hawk.
Now you say something