Green Beret call out John Kerry.

[ShowMeKC]

lol, I never said Iraq was communist, right now there are only 3 communist nations, North Korea, China, and Cuba. We can easily take care of Cuba, and with some work we can take care of North Korea. That would limit the world to 1 communist nation.

The dictator of NK is supporting Kerry because he knows Kerry won't have anything to do with Asia.

[BrandonTO416]

Cuba is not a threat to the United States.

China isn't technically a threat.

North Korea is.

And North Korea propaganda is not what I'd take into consideration when voting for a president. Kerry is not a North Korean sympathizer, so I find it appalling that anyone would insinuate that he is.

The dictator of North Korea does not "support" Kerry.

[Southend]

bthomas: Well said!!!

tocoto: The hatred towards the US is not the result of the war in Iraq. It flourished when we hit the Serbs, and the only reason why it didn't grow as strong as now was because other countries had initiated the whole mess in the Balkans; we were merely invited and stupidly accepted that invitation. That wasn't Bush I or II... it was our boy Clinton.

that is asinine. seriously, it is. all of the mess we see today can be attributed by the republican golden boy ronald reagan- him and his foreign policy are the mess we are cleaning up right now. how come america's favorable rating was at an all time high during the clinton admin, raleigh? please dont let your party affiliation distort the truth.

[Guest donaltopablo]

Despite what a lot of conservatives paint him as, Clinton really wasn't a bad President. People make his years in office to be worse than the were. He was very mainstream and moderate as far as presidents go, not very radical one way or the other (probably because he tried to please as many people as possible).

I do think one thing that is over looked, just like conservatives like to bash Clinton, is that Clinton shared (or at least voted and planned along) the same lines and Bush. Two of the most talked about topics with Bush are Iraq and Gay Marriage. Although Clinton didn't take it nearly as far, Clinton did believe there would be a need to remove Saddam and that he probably had weapons of mass destructions. Clinton also passed the Marriage Protection Act (or whatever they call it), that allows states to ban gay marriage and not acknowledge gay marriages from other states.

Keep that in mind, conservatives and liberals, while your throwing stones from your horse

[monsoon]

[Raleigh-NC]

Southend, I have no party affiliation, whatsoever. Where did you draw your conclusions from? Guessing? As far as Clinton being popular, so was Reagan. What is your point? Try to tell me that it wasn't during the Clinton era when our economy started shaking... Good luck in this effort.

[Cotuit]

lol, I never said Iraq was communist, right now there are only 3 communist nations, North Korea, China, and Cuba. We can easily take care of Cuba, and with some work we can take care of North Korea. That would limit the world to 1 communist nation.

The dictator of NK is supporting Kerry because he knows Kerry won't have anything to do with Asia.

We've been trying to 'easily' take care of Cuba for decades.

How exactly are we going to take care of North Korea? They do reportedly have missiles that can strike Alaska if not the west coast of the lower 48, and they may well have nukes. I think it would tak more than 'some work.' What exactly are you suggesting we take care of?

Neither Bush nor Kerry is likely to make any bold moves against North Korea unless forced into a corner. It's not like they have strategic oil reserves we want.

I'm not sure why you're so gung-ho on ridding the world of communism. Communism isn't a problem, the regimes that run the world's remaining communist governments are the problem. There are lots of other, non-communist regimes that are larger threats to us, and which have horrid human rights records that we should be concerned about.

[Guest donaltopablo]

wasn't during the Clinton era when our economy started shaking

What amazes me is how many people associate the economy with the President. The President has very little power to control the economy. Even funnier is people blaming the recession on Clinton or Bush, since policy decision certainly had nothing to do with the recent fall out of the economy this time around.

What caused the economy to fall out of the bottom this time was a lack of business investment and growth. When the .com fell out (gee, mp3.com worth billions of dollars on a million in revenue? I wonder why our economy fell out the bottom). Also, people over look the giant business investment companies made in the late 90s to prevent the Y2K bug (and they got tax breaks for doing it). When 2000 rolled around and those upgrade ended, the tax breaks ended, and the .com fell apart, it caused the economy to come down. So what exactly was it again that Clinton or Bush did to tank the ecomomy?

[tocoto]

I personnally believe that China is our largest potential threat. They don't like the US. They have the population, the resources, the unity, the educational system, the willlingness to support places like N Korea and (N. Vietnam) against our desires. They also are building the economic might to counter us and we are helping them do it by buying their exports at breakneck speed and sending our jobs to them.

The President sets the tone for the government, and you bet he has a lot to do with the economy and everything else for that matter. Bush is no strategist. His policies in arenas from taxes to the economy to international relations to terrorism have been almost hopelessly bad and unsuccessful. Sure we took Iraq, but to what end? It cost us hundreds of billions of $ to create more unrest and hatred toward the US, and further destabilize the world and alientate our staunchest allies. Now our guys are getting picked off one by one by the ungrateful Iragis we liberated. Meanwhile our economy is in the tank for going on 3 years while China's is growing like topsy.

John Kerry is a man with a silver star and bullet wounds. Bush is a man with a silver spoon and skipped flying classes. I don't see how anyone can doubt which man knows more about war.

Of course Kerry would fight terrorism, probably intelligently and successfully. Hopefully, he would be far better than bush in handling all the affairs of our country. He would almost have to be.

[Guest donaltopablo]

The President sets the tone for the government, and you bet he has a lot to do with the economy and everything else for that matter. Bush is no strategist. His policies in arenas from taxes to the economy to international relations to terrorism have been almost hopelessly bad and unsuccessful. Sure we took Iraq, but to what end? It cost us hundreds of billions of $ to create more unrest and hatred toward the US, and further destabilize the world and alientate our staunchest allies. Now our guys are getting picked off one by one by the ungrateful Iragis we liberated. Meanwhile our economy is in the tank for going on 3 years while China's is growing like topsy.

Sure, any instability in the president becomes a problem for the economy. But the ecomony started it's down fall prior to Bush being elected. In fact, the economy hit it's first major road block months before election occured. Just like 9-11 caused a major hiccup in the economy, instability will cause ruffles in the economy. But neither President caused the downturn in the economy. The economy isn't bad because of lack of consumer spending, since consumers are spending are record levels and carrying record debt. The problem with the most recent downturn in the economy has been lack of business investment. I don't think any amount of personal tax cuts, middle class or otherwise, will restart this economy. It would take business tax cuts, but nobody gets elected on business tax cuts, so conservatives will continue to serve their base, and democracts will continue to serve theirs with a bunch of lip service about repairing the economy, knowing perfectly well neither will generate the change in the economy they are looking for.

I believe China is far from our biggest enemy. China is struggling to balance communism in a global world, and have enough problems of their own dealing with keeping a revolution from happening. The hate of American is a show, a song and dance to counter act all of the positives America stands, and how those ideas would impact their control on the country. China isn't interested in a war or conflict with the US. They want the US to buy their goods, grow their economy so that communism has a place in the modern world after the fall of Russia. What they do need is to keep freedom ideals out of the minds of their people, and portaying a negative image does that.

[Raleigh-NC]

donaltopablo: I stand corrected... You said it well, and I agree with you. Quite frankly, I made the mistake to assign responsibilities to the president instead of his era, although I did say "during the Clinton era", if you read my previous remarks. No, it wasn't Bill Clinton the one responsible, but I do blame him and his administration for using the enthusiasm generated by the overspending (e.g. Y2K-related expenses) to convince everyone that we were doing well. That is not something I can forgive him for. This strategy served his purpose and made him look popular, but I wonder what he could have done if he had the right to be re-elected.

To be fair, it would be nice if you guys picked up the latest issue of Business Week magazine. It has an extensive article where lots of interesting points are raised; our economy's current status is clearly explained and directly associated [partially] to the increased productivity during the pre-Bush years. This is not a Dems vs. Reps article... just a down to Earth explanation on what is currently happening and how we got here.

Southend: allow me one correction... The United States did not become the most hated/disliked nation because of the war in Iraq. If you took trips overseas, if you read foreign newspapers and magazines, and/or if you had close friends living overseas, then you would have known very well that the image of the US received a huge blow during Clinton's era. That's a fact NOBODY can dispute or debate about. Our involvement in the Balkans (100% wrong in my opinion) was the beginning of the end, and the war in Iraq was the icing on the cake. Also, I want you to keep in mind (since you mentioned party affiliation) that I was a volunteer security guard during Paul Tsogas' large gathering in Brooklyn. That man was a person of integrity and honnor. He had great plans and a solid economic plan. Even Ross Perot himself used Paul Tsogas' own book as a guide and he admitted it in front of the TV cameras. So, does that make me a Democrat, or a Republican? Let me tell you what I am: a Nationalist, and a VERY proud one, but not a blind Nationalist who can't see beyond his own beliefs. I might have been an arrogant Nationalist in the past, but I have come a long way since then. I have voted, and will continue doing so, for Rebublicans, Democrats and independents. If I like a person, I'll vote for him/her, otherwise I will vote for the one I think is the best. If I know nothing about the candidates, I won't vote for any of them. I don't do straight tickets (single party) voting, as I think this is irresponsible, but that's my opinion.

To conclude, Kerry has provided no "juice", except for his typical anti-Bush rhetoric. Based on that, he won't get my vote. If Bush falls into Kerry's trap, then I will exclude the former from my list, too. I am not interested in who tells me what I want to hear. I want to know where we stand and how we'll improve the situation. Not only the presidential candidate, but the rest of his/her staff need to impress me with their determination. Who is going to be Kerry's right hand? Who will stand behind him to offer expertise and momentum when necessary? Maybe I am ignorant, but I haven't seen much from Kerry's side. That said, I expect Bush to get off his butt and focus on economic growth; I mean, a solid plan to boost the economy.

[tocoto]

No offense to anyone intended.....

The president controls his party in congress to a large extent. Given that congress is controlled by republicans, bush has quite a bit of control of our country and all of its policies. The economy was going down before bush came in. He was unable to stem the tide before 9/11. His handling of events post 9/11 has proven to be quite inefffective, and actually has made things worse.

Some points:

Presidents make executive orders effecting many things.

they spend or don't spend congresional budgets

they select federal judges for confirmation

they greatly control environmental issues with regard to federally owned lands clear cutting, roads in the wilderness, burns.

They effect pollution controls.

In this case he selects which bills make it to vote in congress

Bush has been a horror for small business.

Bush said he would never raise taxes but has run the highest deficits in history. They must be paid back through taxes. Sounds like a tax increase to me.

He has helped fat cat corporate executives at the expense of millions of jobs.

He went to war on a pocket full of lies to the American people.

He was a draft dodger, same as clinton.

He was a C student in college.

I cannot see a single defense for him as presidential material.

My prediction - He will be a one term president.

. Bushes His handling of many other things

[Cotuit]

Paul Tsogas' death was a national tragedy. A truly great man.

Just needed to say that, carry on...

[Raleigh-NC]

That's right, Cotuit... Paul Tsongas was a great guy and his struggle with cancer gained him a lot of sympathy. He was a modest man, with good morals. As a Greek-American, he remained close to his community, without adopting a "ghetto" mentality. He did not beg the Greek-American community for votes and money, unlike that moron, Mike Dukakis, who remembered his community ONLY during his running for presidency. Paul Tsongas was a great person, hands down, but too modest to win the nomination, or the presidency.

Tocoto, I really like to agree with you, but I can't At least on half of the things you said. I respect your opinion, but I must ask you one thing: do you really believe that the president and his staff rule the country? I hope the answer to this question is a loud NO!!! This country was, is and will be, for a VERY long time, ruled by those who have special interests, American industrialists among them. Unfortunately, the Democrats have been successful in making people associate the ruling class with Republicans, when in reality both parties are puppets of the same master. The difference between these two parties is the small things (I am referring to the things that actually get delivered, not promised). Major wars have been fought under both Dems and Reps... you just seem to live during these times, and your association between the war in Iraq and the "ruling" party is almost inevitable. What was your reaction when we went to the Balkans and bombed the sh*t out of innocent people? Did you protest Clinton's decision then? Just because that war was short and "supported" by other European nations doesn't make it justified. It could have easily turned into another Vietnam for us. Let's not forget that both world wars initiated in the Balkan region/zone and then escalated to a world-wide conflict. During the war against the Serbs, once the Russians got involved we thought twice before continuing. We left a mess behind us, and then the "victims" managed to take over and continue the conflict while we turned our back.

Maybe in your eyes Bush has failed, in many areas, but I don't believe for a moment that Gore, or Kerry, could have handled the crisis any better. It is easy to say these things for Bush because he happened to be the president during tough times, but who can say that the Dems could have done a better job? Nobody can say anything on this, outside personal beliefs and speculations. The attack on the twins wasn't planned during Bush's administration. Such attacks are masterminded years before they happen. The first attack in the twins, many years ago, was planned and orchestrated (for the most part) by Iraqi agents (not all of them of Iraqi descent). That's a fact that goes undisputed, although we managed to conceal the truth really well, simply by ignoring what happened back then. 9-11 was a well executed plan that had major "success", from the terrorists' standpoint. Failures in intelligence did not initiate during Bush's administration, and EVERYONE saying so is a BIG FAT LIAR. The failure of US intelligence started years before Bush became the president, when most people in this country thought we were prospering too much to worry about anything. It didn't matter that people bombed our embassies, our ships, our camps, overseas. What mattered was that we could buy our SUVs, look for a good time, buy stocks, etc. We, as the people of the United States, made the mistake to ignore all those tell-tales, and we paid for our arrogance with the lives of 3000+ innocent civilians, Americans and otherwise.

Now, was Bush a liar? Yes, along with ALL those who have been promoting the WMD theory, among them most Democrats, Clinton and Kerry included. After they realized that the intelligence world failed, many Democrats jumped ships, claiming that they were against the war to begin with. Between a liar who admits [even though partially] to his failures, and a liar who is a chicken sh*t, I'll take the first one, if I need to choose between two sides. Is Kerry better than Bush? Not in my eyes. He hasn't given me any reason to think otherwise and I am afraid he will turn this campaign into a nasty one... Well, he did that from his VERY first day of running for nomination. No, Tocoto, Kerry is NOT a better choice. You can still vote for him (it is your right), but I wonder what you will say when he fails as a president? Let's see if any of the Republican "fanatics" (do we have any of these here?) come out screaming about Kerry's failures. I know I will, and I am not even a Republican. One more thing, I seriously encourage you to look into the latest issue of Business Week. There you will find a few answers of how the economy truly works. Loss of jobs and big fat bonuses to executives isn't a characteristic of either Bush's or Clinton's agenda. These elements are the results of a highly competitive corporate world that failed to deliver (years ago) and try to catch up by increasing productivity. In other words, do more with less resources.

Please, let's stop this sickening anti-Bush/anti-Republicans debate. We must be insane to think that people become Presidents with an intend to ruin this country. They all mean well and they all want to associate their name with great things. Some people excel during peaceful times, some others excel during the rough ones. Clinton served a purpose and so did Bush. If the latter gets re-elected he WILL focus on domestic issues more. If Kerry wins he WILL have to pay more attention to the worldwide crisis that has been there for MANY years. What if Raplh Nader could win? How much difference would HE make? I can't answer this question, but I can assure you that when my vote will be casted, it will go to the person who doesn't try to distract me from reality and has some good plans.

I apologize for the lengthy responses. I hope that nobody takes my reactions personally; I mean no offense.

[tocoto]

I am no fanatic. In fact, I am rather conservative in many regards. I think Bush is a liar and incompetent, that's why I don't like him for president, especially at this difficult time. I think Kerry is honest and competent. He also has proven himself to be tough in battle, and not dogmatic in decision making. So I like him better than Bush.

BTW, the people rule the country, especially if they assert their constitional rights and vote.

[Raleigh-NC]

Well, as far as Kerry's honesty, please refer back to his "support" record on the first Gulf War and the war in Iraq; he is anything but honest. As far as his competency is concerned, I honestly do not know. If he wins, his success as a president will depend on how well he will choose his staff and how strong he will be against partisan lines. While there are a few people who may disagree (especially in this forum), most sources (including Democrats) have painted a positive picture of George Bush as governor of Texas. He went beyond partisan politics to select good people and he found them among both Reps and Dems. To me, Bush proved himself before he became a president. Kerry... well, there are lots of unknown things about him. His serving in Vietnam may place him high on many people's list, but that is not enough, especially when international politics demand tough decisions on behalf of the US. Sorry, but I don't think Kerry can pull this. If he wins, he'd better prove me wrong.

As far as your last statement goes, I have to disappoint you (please, don't take my tone as sarcasm), but the powers-to-be have placed themselves way above us, the voters... the people, if you will. No matter who wins, these guys will profit, silently and secretly. Don't get me wrong, this could change, but it will take a VERY long time, and definitely not during our lifetime. If you don't believe me, there is a wealth of titles out there that could help you see that the powerful people existed all the times and controlled this country's destiny in ways unimaginable to the average people. For beginners, I would recommend "The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today", by Ferdinand Lundberg (you can pick it up for less than $10, through the Amazon.com market sellers; this book is out of print), written in 1968, if my memory serves me well. Nothing ground-breaking, but nevertheless a nice study of who truly governs this country. It will become evident that neither Bush, nor Clinton, nor Kerry, nor anyone else who becomes a president is better, or worse than another. Your vote may count, but in most cases it doesn't really matter. Sure, some changes will come from our votes, but the fundamental issues remain the same. I, too, envision a clean environment and a peaceful world, but there are moments when I am willing to sacrifice my life to secure a better future for the next generations.

One observation that is NOT related to anyone in this thread. To be specific, it is more of a general observation about the forums in SSP. How many of those anti-Bush fanatics attack Bush on environment? Most, if not all. Yet, every time they see grit and decay in the photos they drool (I've seen it more than a few times). If I show them photos of a smaller city, with lots of trees covering the views, they won't even bother commenting; get the trees out of the way and the "urban feel" gets praised a lot. Is that honesty? I know it sounds unrelated, but if you think about it you will realize what I am trying to say. That is, we have lost touch with nature. We praise urbanization, yet we pretend to be environmentalists. Can these two co-exist? Yes, in some cases, but the vast majority praises city living and skyscrapers, drools over urbanity, but quite frankly these forumers seem to have lost the link with nature. Going for hiking every weekend is not good enough. City parks maybe good, but they are far from sufficient. This may sound like nonsense, but in my mind it is very clear. Instead of using their energy to bash Bush and the Republicans, some people would better try to educate others beyond partisan lines. Environmental damage was done even when the Dems were "controlling" things. The best way to prevent future damage, or at least restrict it, is to raise consiousness among our friends, our family and co-workers. Apply pressure to our politicians and then MAYBE we'll achieve something. I don't know, this last paragraph may confuse some people, I am afraid.

[BrandonTO416]

Raleigh - you seem to be pointing to Bill Clinton a lot, as if Clinton is responsible for the current ills??

If so - that is a poor argument.

[Raleigh-NC]

Heckles, I could stop pointing to Bill Clinton if:

* The anti-Bush crowd recognizes the many and significant ills of Clinton's administration.

* People stop offering opinions based strictly on their political affiliations and begin to criticize ALL sides. I would have spoken differently if everyone here praised Bush.

* The anti-Bush/anti-Republican crowd realizes, once and for all, that terrorists acted before, act during and will continue to act after Bush's administration. Terrorists do not care about the silly Dems vs Reps debate and unless we get tough on them, they will continue to cause trouble.

* Forumers who support Kerry understand that Kerry's promises, so far, have not gone beyond Bush's current strategy. A recent CNN article on Kerry's economic plan stated the reactions by both conservative and liberal analysts; surprisingly enough, Kerry's plan was criticized by the latter, while receiving support from the former. Now, if Kerry comes up with a plan on how he will deal with international issues, national security and terrorism, then I am sure he will get even closer to George Bush's policies than he is now. So, what's the difference between them? (Please do not take this question literally, I know there are some differences.)

Now, it is no secret that I do not like Bill Clinton and his administration. I dislike his lying on our economy's state (as Bob Dole correctly stated during his public debate with Clinton, temporary services was the fastest growing sector of the economy), he and his administration did little, if anything at all, to protect the consumers from all those credit card issuing companies (anyone wonders why most of those companies lost cases in the last 3 years?) and their illegal actions against consumers, he undermined national security by cutting important funds to "certain" agencies overseas (e.g. Moscow), and several other things that I am tired of even recalling. For the record, I have voted for both Dems and Reps, based on the fact that they were good people and went beyond partisan lines, and I will do so again and again.

Blaming Clinton for many (not all) of today's ills is not a poor argument, it is a fact that nobody can deny, unless he/she is blind. Sorry, but that's not just my opinion. To be fair and clear, Clinton did not mean for things to go wrong. EVERY president takes office in hope that he can do things better. Kerry means well, but so does Bush. No matter who wins, few things will really change. I know that some of you are very concerned about the gay marriage issue, which I am sure you believe Kerry will take care of. Personally, I doubt very seriously that Kerry will do anything at all about it. You must realize that there are Dems who are against it, too, although they remain silent and hypocritical about their true position. Gay voters may have better chances if they vote for Nader than for Kerry. Politicians pay lip service to single interest groups, gay and otherwise.

[Guest donaltopablo]

My new grip with Kerry is that he is now semi-backing Clarke. Clarke pulled a batch of turn faced lying like no politican I've ever seen. I certainly would not have even given him the benefit of mentioning his name. That's a huge negative in my mind for Kerry.

[Raleigh-NC]

Clarke is an opportunist, and I don't care if he is a Democrat, a Republican, an Anarchist, or a Nationalist. He is the kind of person who twists the truth if it serves his purpose, more than anyone else. Kerry will naturally back Clarke; the latter serves the former's purpose just fine.

[BrandonTO416]

You have some grave misunderstandings about my viewpoint if you think I'm voting or supporting one candidate over another on the gay issue.

I feel deeply about leftist causes in general - I believe in universal healthcare as probably one of my strongest domestic issues for example.

But for what its worth, Kerry has a great record on civil rights for gay Americans. That is beside the point, however.

And yea - Clinton made screw ups. But he isn't screwing quite like Bush presently is...