For the Libs, Why are you voting for Kerry?

[nbdysfu]

c'mon aclu, pj, hit us with some facts about Kerry

 

[menewa]

The main reason I intend to vote for Kerry is his dedication to environmental causes. He has the greenest record of any US Senator. I also will vote for Kerry because of his stand against wasteful spending on such pointless endeavors as the missile shield. Granted, when Reagan was in office, there was a chance of a missile strike from the Soviets, but that's over.
Also, throughout his life Kerry has been an overachiever. At Yale, while Bush was getting sloshed, Kerry was a top athlete, captain of the debate team and a great student while Bush was merely a male cheerleader.
And later, while Bush was playing war in the wilderness of Alabama, Kerry was actually in the bush risking his ass.
But I reitirate that my main reason for voting for Kerry his is environmental record. He understands that we can't let private companies regulate themselves and we certainly can't let the likes of Chevron and Exxon write our public policies.
The reason America inspired so many great people to do great things is because of our beautiful landscape. He understands the need to protect it. Bush also seems to be an outdoorsman, and most hunters are stalwart defenders of out natural heritage. Hunters give more to protecting the land than any other group. I don't know why Bush kowtows to industries that are methodically destroying a landscape that I believe he loves himself?

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
While That is admirable of you there are more important issue at hand!

Is the war on terror non-important? what are your view's on Kerry and this issue?

Not much is more important than the environment. While issues like the war on terror are ephemeral, the planet and all its glories will still stand. What's the use of winning a war on terror if the water we drink and the air we breathe make us sick.

But of course the war on terror is important. Since Kerry himself was a soldier, I'm sure one of the first things he would do is make sure our men and women have the gear they need and start earning the salaries they deserve. A basic private in the Army makes about $17K a year, not hardly enough. I believe Kerry will change this.
I also think he will begin to fight the war on terror as a policing action against the individual terrorist, not thwart funds into macabre sideshows of regime change intended to enrich his corporate friends in the defense and oil industries.

 

[menewa]

I think a lot has been pointed out about his time served. I really don't see this making him any more a better leader in the fight on terrorism. He has already stated that he would continue what Bush has done, only he will do it better. That is not so convincing to me. But hey, this is just my opinion! thanks for your answer!

Yeah, you are right that Kerry has not gotten very specific as to what he would do to improve our strategies in the war on terror. It seems he's so concerned about being a centrist and collecting as many votes as possible that he's forgotten who he is and is too timid at this point to take any stand that may seem new to the American public.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by menewa
Yeah, you are right that Kerry has not gotten very specific as to what he would do to improve our strategies in the war on terror. It seems he's so concerned about being a centrist and collecting as many votes as possible that he's forgotten who he is and is too timid at this point to take any stand that may seem new to the American public.

Being a naive, idiotic, anti war imbecile is nothing new. Most americans know this. And kerry knows they know. Why don't you know?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Menewa, what is the value of environmental policy if the government charged with enforcing it falls?

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by menewa
Not much is more important than the environment. While issues like the war on terror are ephemeral, the planet and all its glories will still stand. What's the use of winning a war on terror if the water we drink and the air we breathe make us sick.

Seem you are in the minority on that issue and one that is not of a big voter concern. Most canidates will campaign to voters concerns and make policy accordingly. And again you are in the minority on that issue.

Check it out.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Seem you are in the minority on that issue and one that is not of a big voter concern. Most canidates will campaign to voters concerns and make policy accordingly. And again you are in the minority on that issue.

Check it out.

Yes admitedly even the dems have steered clear of the environmental issues so not to look soft on the WOT.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Personally, I have to say that the environment is not number one on my list which I'm sure goes against most liberal thinking. I mean for god's sake, I drive a big gas guzzling truck! At least I get my gas from Arco and they in turn get they're gas from Alaska. But, ya, I don't really look at environmental issues when it comes to voting for a candidate. It's not that I don't care, it's just not a priority to me. I dunno, I do my best to make sure I try not to contribute to environmental problems, especially at the beach. I am probably one of the cleanest people visiting beaches. But I have been known to throw cigarette butts on the ground (when I smoked) or to throw the occasional bubble gum wrapper or bubble gum itself on the edge of a sidewalk.

As for Kerry's war standings in general, here are few. It's more for information than anything else. I don't agree with everything, but here it is:

Karl Rove: "Kerry gave green light to Bush on Iraq".
Need two army divisions for now-but no draft.
No regrets on war vote-but regrets on Bush breaking promises.
Only go to war if we have to, not because we want to.
Bush went to war the wrong way-I voted for the right way.
Pre-emptive strike ok only when US survival at stake.
Get US more deeply involved in Arab-Israeli peace process.
Leadership comes from experience: share the war burden.
Bush has broken his promises & is mismanaging war.
Maybe on $87B for Iraq-repeal Bush tax cut to pay it, if yes.
De-Americanize Iraq: the exit strategy is victory.
Vote for war was needed to push Saddam on inspectors.
$87B for Iraq only when internationalization is addressed.
Don't miss 3rd opportunity in Iraq to bring in UN.
Don't send more US troops to Iraq-share power & share burden.
Against a misapplied blanket pre-emptive doctrine.
Intelligence information should not be manipulated.
Disarm Saddam, but war should be a last resort.
Preferred diplomacy, but supported invading Iraq.
Vietnam was genocide, but no point calling it "war crimes".
Vietnam didn't threaten US; US war crimes did.
Vietnam war was criminal hypocrisy and tore apart US.
US soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, including me.
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
Voted NO on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo.
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo.
Voted NO on ending the Bosnian arms embargo.
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Personally, I have to say that the environment is not number one on my list which I'm sure goes against most liberal thinking. I mean for god's sake, I drive a big gas guzzling truck! At least I get my gas from Arco and they in turn get they're gas from Alaska.

As Arco is a division of BP, I find that hard to believe.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NewGuy
As Arco is a division of BP, I find that hard to believe.

ditto

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey BrownEyedGirl. What promises did Bush make about going to war? What is "the right way" to go to war that Kerry would employ, that Bush did not?

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Show me the post where I said that and then I will respond. I don't believe I ever said that. I try to be as diplomatic as possible and not make outrageous comments like that. Please provide a direct link to that comment.

I did say however in another post about the WOT, that I was against it from the beginning and still am. In fact, at the time, I was the only one to say that I was against it though on the poll there were 2 other peole who voted the same way.

As for my post below, I did say that I did not agree with everything that Kerry was for. Personally, I'm more for diplomatic reasoning, but that's just me.

I hope that answers your question Sir Evil and RWA. If not, ask away...

Edit:
I see where you guys got that. I was trying to figure out when and where I would say such a thing.

Everything above in the "list" is what Kerry is for or has said.
Those are not my words.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Hey BrownEyedGirl. What promises did Bush make about going to war? What is "the right way" to go to war that Kerry would employ, that Bush did not?

I'm not sure what 'promises she was talking about, but here are some excerpts from 1/02 SOU speech:

"But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.) Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.)


From 1/03 SOU speech:

This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. (Applause.) We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.

Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men -- free people will set the course of history. (Applause.)

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. (Applause.)

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. (Applause.) Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. (Applause.)

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)

On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. (Applause.)

America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. (Applause.) The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions. (Applause.)

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

What part was wrong?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Show me the post where I said that and then I will respond. I don't believe I ever said that. I try to be as diplomatic as possible and not make outrageous comments like that.

I did say however in another post about the WOT, that I was against it from the beginning and still am. In fact, at the time, I was the only one to say that I was against it though on the poll there were 2 other peole who voted the same way.

As for my post below, I did say that I did not agree with everything that Kerry was for. Personally, I'm more for diplomatic reasoning, but that's just me.

I hope that answers your question Sir Evil and RWA. If not, ask away...

It's in your list of kerry opinions on the war. Did you just unthinkingly type those in from the moveon.org site or something?

No. my question wasn't answered in the slightest. What is the right way to go to war? You wrote it. Now explain it.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Here's a link about Arco gas and Alaska. I will proudly stand correctly if I am wrong though.

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/NatResources/miller1.htm

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
It's in your list of kerry opinions on the war. Did you just unthinkingly type those in from the moveon.org site or something?

No. my question wasn't answered in the slightest. What is the right way to go to war? You wrote it. Now explain it.

Just look at my edit. I did answer your question. I did not write those words. Those are things that Kerry has said or supports.

Now would you like me to explains something that is not my words? I can but it will be wrong.

At the very beginning of the list, I clearly stated this:

As for Kerry's war standings in general, here are few. It's more for information than anything else. I don't agree with everything, but here it is:

So how can these be my words when I am writing what Kerry has said.

And as for copying something from Moveon.org, how would you ever know considering that you have shown that you do not visit websites that go against your line of thinking? I invite you to check out Moveon.org and find this list.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Just look at my edit. I did answer your question. I did not write those words. Those are things that Kerry has said or supports.

Now would you like me to explains something that is not my words? I can but it will be wrong.

At the very beginning of the list, I clearly stated this:



So how can these be my words when I am writing what Kerry has said.

And as for copying something from Moveon.org, how would you ever know considering that you have shown that you do not visit websites that go against your line of thinking? I invite you to check out Moveon.org and find this list.

I figured you knew what he meant. I guess it's true, libs do just mindlessly regurgitate catch phrases. You've discredited yourself quite heartily.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

No no my dear RWA. Nobody had posted even a remote example of what Kerry stood for as far as the WOT or anything war related for that matter. So I went ahead and did so.

Now, if you would like me to explain another persons answers, I could give it a shot, but I would expect the same from you in return. I'm sure I could find something that Bush has said in the past that I would love for you to explain.

That, or we could get back on track of this topic which is why libs are voting for Kerry or we could sidetrack some more which is what you seem to be interested in RWA. Please let me know what you prefer. I love speaking with you!

 

[brneyedgrl80]

lol, you're great Sir Evil.

You always make me laugh! :