We Can't Afford to Elect An Incompetent President

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SPIKESMYGOD, Jun 1, 2004.

  1. SPIKESMYGOD
    Offline

    SPIKESMYGOD Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    175
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Ratings:
    +46
    I'm sorry, but I have decided that I cannot vote for a man who is incompetent, shows poor judgment & leadership skills, and lacks intellectual curiosity. This is why I am voting for President Bush.

    It seems that the latest talking points sent down by the Democratic party to describe President Bush are "incompetent, poor judgment & leadership skills, inexperience," & "a lack of intellectual curiosity." Well, sadly for them it turns out that they, once again, have reversed the truth and are engaging in classic Freudian projection. They are trying to sell the American people a bad bill of goods, filled with lies & propaganda.

    I know I could take up everyones day with examples of Kerry being the true symbol of their charges, but let's just hit a few.

    Poor Judgment:

    In addition to fighting, tooth & nail, ANY attempt to fund the Contras in the early 80's, John Kerry not only supported & defended Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega, he actually flew to meet with him in Nicaragua. Upon his return, Kerry could not help but prattle on & on about what a great leader Ortega was, and demand that Reagan & Republicans stop calling Ortega a communist & a pawn of the Soviet Union. Not a week later did Ortega fly to Moscow and receive millions & millions in filthy commie money & aid.

    If this isn't enough poor judgment, let's look at his North Korean fiasco. Just as all other Democrats & members of the LMM hailed Clinton's "historic peace initiative" with North Korea, John Kerry could not contain himself in his praise for finally ending the nuclear threat from North Korea. However, President Bush, thank Joss, showed far better judgment. In his now-famous State of the Union address, Bush declared North Korea to be a part of the "Axis of Evil." Just as liberals became apoplectic when Reagan CORRECTLY called the former Soviet Union an "Evil Empire," Kerry was one of the many liberal sheep to castigate President Bush for eroneously attacking North Korea, declaring that he, Bush, was undermining the great peace which Clinton gave to us. Well, before Kerry & other liberals could get into full Bush-bashing mode, Kim Jong Il announced to the world that they were now the proud owners of 6 or more nuclear weapons.


    Lack of intellectual curiosity:

    To me, the sign of an intellectually curious & sound individual is someone who reads up on a subject, indagates the specifics, weighs the options, and makes a clear & concise decision. Though some might disagree with Bush's policies, they CANNOT say that he is indecisive. Kerry, on the other hand, cannot make up his mind on ANY subject. He cannot stick to ANY of his numerous murky, ever-changing positions. Whether this is a sign of ignorance of the issues, having not done the necessary homework to reach a firm position, or a sign that he is just intellectually lazy, it is obvious that he, Kerry, is a man with very little intellectual curiosity.

    Inexperience:

    Without even touching on his flip-flopping, let's just keep it brief: Kerry is a senator. He hasn't even been a governor, someone soley responsible for the charge of leading an entire state. Bush, conversely, has been BOTH a successful governor AND president.


    Incompetence & lack of leadership:

    President Bush has pulled us out of the Clinton recession, giving us what is now a BOOMING economy. President Bush pulled us out of the disastrous Kyoto Treaty & reversed our policy of ignoring the growing threat from North Korea. Bush saw us through 9/11, the worst terror attack ever brought to our shores. He took a war, not a battery of arrest warrants, to the barbaric terrorists who hit us. He decimated the Taliban; has ripped Al Qaeda into little, though still dangerous, threads; he took out Iraq as a threat, deposed & imprisoned Saddam, killed his two thug sons, and has liberated the Iraqi people; and Bush's policies have forced Libya to open its doors & disavow its desire to join in with the terrorists.

    President Bush has crushed oppression, freed over 50 million people, and his war on terror is transforming the Middle East, just as Reagan's policies, despite liberals, freed the Russian people & Eastern Europe, thus making the world a new, safer world.

    [Side Note: If anyone saw President Bush answer the LMM's accusatory questions today, you can take heart that our boy is hitting full stride. I am sure that Kerry, Mr. Debate Club, is pissing his pants at the looming prospect of upcoming debates. If he isn't, he needs to call the asylum & ask poor Al Gore what fate awaits him.]

    Conversely, beyond his disastrous, anti-American, & inconsistent voting record, Kerry...........well, he can't even decide whether or not he owns an SUV!

    Since we Republicans, unlike Democrats, are NOT sheep, I really frown upon talking points & marching orders, not to mention being on the defensive. However, I am fed up & I will make the exception, THIS TIME: Whenever you are arguing with liberals, writing out your own thoughts on politics, or just e-mailing Democrats in Congress & members of the LMM, I implore you to turn their words around on them. I implore you to point out that their terms like "incompetence" & "lack of intellectual curiosity" actually describe Kerry, certainly not President Bush. Also, I have taken a special interest in Chris Matthews, and I regularly e-mail him. I ask him why he only has liberals on his Sunday panels. I ask him why he is so scared to have Ann Coulter on his shows- instead of having safe, turncoat Republicans like McCain. We might not be able to dictate the LMM/Democratic party talking points attack machine, but we need to be more proactive, far more aggressive, and we need not be afraid of embracing the hate, the hate which is their bread & butter.

    BRING IT ON!!!!!!!

    People..........

    We are in VERY dangerous & uncertain times, and we cannot allow our president & our country to be attacked by terrorist sympathizers, just as they were communists or fellow travelers back in the day. We aren't talking about what percentage of growth should be mandated for certain social programs. We aren't debating the finer points of baseline budgeting or economic theories. We aren't even discussing heated topics like abortion and gun control.

    WE ARE IN A WAR AGAINST TERROR!

    We cannot allow a party which calls Hamas terrorists "soldiers," calls terrorists "sort of terrorists," and claims that the "war on terror is exaggerated" to wrest control of OUR country from us. We need a president who is competent, experienced, shows good judgment, and is intellectually curious. Therefore, we MUST re-elect President Bush!
     
  2. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    gimme a break...


    Inventing The "Clinton Recession" source- Business Week

    No one should be surprised when economic or budget forecasts coming out of Washington are influenced by politics, especially during an election year. But when economic history is rewritten -- with political consequences -- that's going too far. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, chaired by Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, is trying to get away with exactly such revisionist history. The CEA's Economic Report of the President, released Feb. 9, unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid. Instead of using the accepted start date of March, 2001, the CEA announced that the recession really started in the fourth quarter of 2000 -- a shift that would make it much more credible for the Bush Administration to term it the "Clinton Recession." In a subsequent press conference, Mankiw said that the CEA had looked at the available data and "made the call."
    Advertisement

    This simple statement masks an attack on one of the few remaining bastions of economic neutrality. For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonpartisan research group based in Cambridge, Mass.

    While there have been complaints over the years, this arrangement has been accepted by economists, government agencies, and politicians -- until now. "For the first time, the federal government is intervening in the process," says Robert Hall, an economist at Stanford University and the conservative Hoover Institution who since 1978 has chaired the NBER panel of seven prominent economists who make the actual decision....
     
  3. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    OMG - I am still laughing. I damn near pissed my pants.

    Great post Spikes!
     
  4. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    As usual great post spikeS.

    And NYC, your crying about Clinton having not created a recession. When it starts in the final 2 quarters of his term and is active in the first 5 quarters of Bush's, how is that not Clinton's fault. Tax hikes finally caught up to the booming economy created from the .coms. Bush had to give 2 tax cuts and go into deficit spending to revive the economy. But the economy is booming now. You can't deny that.
     
  5. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14


    I'm not crying about anything.

     
  6. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Of course your not. the economy is too good to be crying right now. You should be celebrating, or working.
     
  7. SPIKESMYGOD
    Offline

    SPIKESMYGOD Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    175
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Ratings:
    +46
    nycflasher-

    You bring up an interesting point. Even though we Republicans know that, despite Clinton's tax hikes & attempts to destroy the economy, Newt was responsible for much of the 90's boom, it is a stretch to lay the recession at Clinton's doorstep, even though technically I was correct. However, Bush senior's- another tax hiker- economy was out of recession, this even though the LMM called it a recession, right up until election day. Now, under a REAL Republican, President George W. Bush, the economy is on fire, yet STILL most members of the LMM keep doggin' the economic outlook. So, what I said was true, but I see what you mean. Just know this: We are only playing by YOUR rules.

    Yo, don't hate da playa, baby, hate da game!


    insein & HGROKIT-

    Thanks, just trying to fight the good fight, as are you!


    Everyone:

    What with Chris Matthews being so obsessed with Abu Ghraib, is it just me or can the rest of you also picture Chris Matthews [aka. Dog Leash Boy] in a dark corner, masturbating to photos from Abu Ghraib? What a sicko perv!

    Personally, I propose a few items:

    1) We should place daily bets on how long it will take for Dog Leash Boy to say the name "Abu Ghraib" every night on "Nerf Softball."

    2) We should have a drinking game, where everyone has to take a sip of booze whenever he mentions his favorite kinky den of debauchery.

    3) We should dump sarin & mustard gas on the family & friends of any liberal who STILL maintains that no WMD's have been found in Iraq. Tonight, it looks like Michael Wolff's family & friends will die agonizing deaths. Why? Well, he unequivocally stated that "not a trace of WMD has been found in Iraq." Well, since sarin & mustard gas are no more harmful than French wine- actually, that might be worse- I suppose he would have no problem with his loved ones being directly exposed to the aforementioned agents, right?


    Lesson & Mission:

    The LMM are going to go to ANY length to defeat our president, and we have got to do our individual parts to save OUR country from their sick, twisted, terrorist-sympathizing, perverted, traitorous, Bush-bashing, America-hating agenda.
     
  8. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    SPIKESMYGOD, nice post. I really like your writing, but I did have problems with a lot of what you said:

    You can't say the liberal is wrong until we know whether or not it came from the weapon's Rumsfeld and Cheney said were there.

    Daniel Ortega was a hell of a better leader than any of the s.o.bs that Reagan wanted to put in, anthing would be better than those murdering kidnapping drugsmuggling contras.

    The whole reason why there even is a North Korean fiasco is because of Bush! If he hadn't been obsessed with attacking Iraq, maybe he would have had the time to pay attention to the fact that NK had just kicked out the weapon inspectors.

    Well, thats your OPINION. Bush has a one track mind. You know that from point A he WILL arrive at point B. On the other hand, Kerry thinks about all of the different issues and so it appears to you that he is waffling.

    Come on now. Governing a state even the size of Texas won't prepare you for the presidency. At 42%, I wouldn't exactly call him a successful president.

    How was the Kyoto Treaty disasterous?

    Then why can NK nuke L.A.?

    It wasn't a threat. He created a much bigger threat than Iraq would ever have been by losing sight of al-Qaeda: letting it recreate itself, giving it better propaganda to use against the U.S.
    Attacking the "threat" of Iraq created a much bigger threat of NK, one with nukes that will one day, if not already, be on the black market.

    Probably because she makes a mockery of the conservative side. She's a republican bimbo. On O'Reilly she actually SAID she thinks the war in Iraq is going "magnificently".
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    by PJ

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20021018.shtml

    October 18, 2002

    Clinton and North Korea

    "North Korea Says It Has a Program on Nuclear Arms" -- New York Times, Oct. 17, 2002.


    President Bill Clinton will be remembered by history for only one thing, which is a bit of a shame since his record is so thoroughly shabby and dishonorable that it deserves closer study.

    Clinton's contribution to our vulnerability to terror has been well documented, and now comes news that another of his foreign policies has come to fruition. The North Koreans have admitted what close observers have suspected all along -- that they have a nuclear weapons program and may have already produced a number of bombs. (Oh, and by the way, worshippers of arms control treaties kindly note: North Korea is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)

    The only mystery is why Pyongyang has now chosen to admit it.

    In the early 1990s, North Korea, even more than other communist states, was drowning in the consequences of its system. People were starving. A congressional study estimated that as many as 1 million died of starvation by 1998. But the regime was no less belligerent for that. Pyongyang continued to build up its military and was aggressively pursuing nuclear capability. Though its facilities were supposed to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, North Korea persistently delayed inspections. Meanwhile, its aggressive posture and rhetoric toward South Korea continued, as did its development of long-range missiles.

    President Clinton, observing this situation, saw what needed to be done: Pyongyang would have to be appeased. As former defense secretary William Perry put it, the administration thought it "necessary to move forward in a more positive way with North Korea." In exchange for a temporary freeze on its nuclear program and a mere promise to refrain from developing such weapons in the future, the Clinton administration extended nearly $1 billion in foreign aid for food and fuel oil, as well as promising to build two light water reactors for the North Koreans.

    Certainly the administration must have attached conditions? Surely it insisted that the regime provide proof that the aid was not being used for military purposes, and it must have insisted on some form of political and economic liberalization? The Clinton administration must have tied this aid package to guarantees that the North Koreans would cease exporting ballistic missiles to nations like Iran and Pakistan? Actually, no. As Perry explained, "The policy team believed that the North Korean regime would strongly resist such reform ..."

    The North Koreans, rewarded for their belligerence, naturally continued down the same path. (And the lesson was probably not lost on other dangerous regimes that seeking nuclear weapons can bring goodies from Washington.) In 1998, they tested a new, three-stage ballistic missile. Did the Clinton administration at last learn the lesson that appeasement does not work? Not quite. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and William Perry held a press conference to announce that the United States was continuing to pursue good relations with North Korea: "We must deal with the North Korean government as it is, not as we wish it would be."

    Accordingly, the Clinton administration proposed to lift economic sanctions on North Korea if it promised -- but this time really, sincerely promised -- to stop development of long-range missiles. The North Korean government didn't even deign to respond for a full week -- but the Clinton administration relaxed sanctions anyway.

    The Clinton administration officials believed their policies toward North Korea were a success. By "engaging" Pyongyang, they believed, they had avoided war. Neville Chamberlain thought the same. Instead, the appeasement merely emboldened the North Koreans. A Republican study group concluded in 1999 that North Korea "is a greater threat to international stability" than it had been five years before, "primarily in Asia and secondarily in the Middle East." Is it conceivable that the Clinton foreign policy team really believed North Korea could be bribed into decency?

    Edmund Burke warned, "There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." That includes assuming that they will lie, cheat and betray. The liberal attachment to treaties is thus laid bare for the chimera it is. When strength and resolve were required, Bill Clinton supplied weakness and legerdemain. And in this, as in the war on terror, he has bequeathed a more dangerous world to his successor.
     
  10. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    They can't.

    Strike two.

    http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/td-2.htm

    One more strike and you're out!
     

Share This Page