Winnow, answer the godamn question

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 28, 2004, 8:12 pm

You have been avoiding my simple question asking “how would you judge George Bush, the man your voting for, as a president?”

All you posts have been about how terrible Kerry is or by how badly Bush will win the next election, and unlike even Midnyte and Metanis who are able to admit when Bush makes a mistake, you, like the president believe that he is perfect and has never done wrong….despite the fact that you are a pro-choice atheist pro gay rights and pro environmental protection.

To most people on this board, you opinion is completely discredited because you cannot even voice a positive opinion on the man you so vigorously defend.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 28, 2004, 8:42 pm

I've been served.

I've answered those questions. You're making most of your accusations up. I've never said Bush was anything more than a better choice than Kerry. You'll have to dig up some quotes where I said "how badly Bush will win the next election". There are no indications that point toward anything other than a close election.

I've also gone into detail regarding levels of importance for various issues with the defense and security of our country ranking above all others on my list. In this regard, Bush is the man. I'm voting for him because I don't subscribe to the "anyone but Bush" theory and believe that Bush is a better choice over Kerry.

I am disappointed that the democrats ended up with a candidate I have no confidence in and am frankly a little concerned should he be elected. I don't have Bush hate blinders on like many here when I consider Kerry as a candidate and can see he's not someone I want in office. Bush is a good front man which is pretty much all presidents are these days except when it comes to the defense of our nation. I'm not willing to give that responsibility to someone I can't get a read from one speech to the next and who doesn't impress me in general terms of his ability to lead.

Unfortunately, if you break down the issues, I agree with a few that would favor a democrat in the White House but it's not as simple as that.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 28, 2004, 8:52 pm

If you have gone into detail, I certainly have not seen it either. All I have seen is a well off white guy who likes the current situation because it personally favors him and/or serves his personal need to be a drama queen by defying the prevailing opinion. At least, thats the impression I get. I could be wrong, but I won't go into detail why I have that opinion because everyone else should be able to peice it together telepathically from my cryptic dodges and half truths I have posted.

/sarcasm off

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 28, 2004, 9:17 pm

All you posts have been about how terrible Kerry is or by how badly Bush will win the next election

Hehe...Ok is this Xzion talking here? Your critizing someone for exactly the same thing that you do, but just the other side.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 28, 2004, 9:28 pm

I'm all for drama and certainly do my best to cause veins to pop in the foreheads of those with opposing viewpoints, but I won't be voting for Bush to cause drama on this board.

Stereotyping me as a well off white guy may rationalize my views to you but I do take the time to project how my decisions will impact me as far down the road as I can before making them. I am adding one more sentence to this paragraph out of respect for your paragraph structuring abilities.

I'm serious when I say I have no confidence in the sincerity of Kerry's message and ability to be Commander in Chief. I do have confidence in the people and government of the United States to right itself and to continue to be self correcting using the two party system. Those corrections or needs for change don't come exactly every four years though. I'd personally like to see a single term limit for the president and extend it to six years. Four is too short and eight is too long.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 28, 2004, 9:33 pm

It isn't hate for Bush that is the problem. It's fear of where he'll lead the most powerful nation in the world next.

Do you really want 4 more years of conflict in simultanious areas across the world?

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 28, 2004, 9:36 pm

The short answer:
Personally after 9/11, Yes.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 28, 2004, 9:38 pm

Sirton wrote:The short answer:
Personally after 9/11, Yes.

That's pretty counterproductive.

So after one of the greatest tragedies on American soil, you would like to see lots of pointless protracted costly wars?

-=Lohrno

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 28, 2004, 9:41 pm

Im not gonna argue it... If you dont know my position by now. There is no point.

Llaffer · Post by **Llaffer** » October 28, 2004, 9:49 pm

Animalor wrote:Do you really want 4 more years of conflict in simultanious areas across the world?

Better anywhere else than on American Soil again. Stop them now before they can strike again.

I think this is one of Bush'es best quotes from the debates:

"We have to be right all of them time, they only have to be right once."

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 28, 2004, 9:49 pm

But your point is, to kill anyone who might hate America before we even know that they do, or will?

Did I sum it up pretty good? Cause thats how you portray every post you make on the subject, and thats how and why you will vote for Bush it seems.

But, we WERNT right at all. Thats the point. So we attacked and killed for the wrong reason, before we knew all the truth muchless a small part of it. The only truth thats there, is that he killed people who were uprising. Not that much big of a diffrence between him doing that, and us dropping 2 atomic bombs on NON military citys on Japan.

Sure was Saddam a bad guy? Yes, but were there more pressing situations than Iraq? You damn well bet. I can at least count 5 reasons on I small section that we dropped agent orange on non stop. Was Iraq saying they would kill us? No. Did NK say they would attack if provoked? yes. Did Iraq have nukes? No, did NK have nukes? Yes.

I dont know how hard it is to see clearly. Kicking a Bees nest full of religious people who will allow/kill themselves over the thought of their god would approve it. By FORCING our way of living on to them,how is that going to show them we care? To show that our Armys arnt there to take over the region.

Like I said. If the situation was a Country full of Black Muslims, and invaded a part of North America to "free" us to follow their way of relgion and life,because they thought that state was being repressed in their eyes. Im pretty sure our white relgious nuts would react the same way they are doing now in Iraq,and other Mideastern countries.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 28, 2004, 9:57 pm

Sirton wrote:Im not gonna argue it... If you dont know my position by now. There is no point.

I know it, I just can't comprehend how you can actually believe some of that. For example, how you think that they are going to stay over there and concentrate only on countries in that area. It only takes a few people to carry out a terrorist attack (more to plot it..). Oh well. We'll agree to disagree I guess.

-=Lohrno

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 29, 2004, 1:18 am

Llaffer wrote:
Animalor wrote:Do you really want 4 more years of conflict in simultanious areas across the world?
Better anywhere else than on American Soil again. Stop them now before they can strike again.

I think this is one of Bush'es best quotes from the debates:

"We have to be right all of them time, they only have to be right once."

The sad part is that's exactly why military solutions don't work to stop terrorism.

It's apt as a defense of "intelligence failures" in stopping terrorism, but it doesn't explain your foreign policy.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » October 29, 2004, 2:26 am

9/11 3k dead
Iraq 100k+ dead

Sirton go fuck yourself.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » October 29, 2004, 2:34 am

The title of this thread made me think of the Breakfast Club.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 29, 2004, 3:02 am

Aslanna wrote:The title of this thread made me think of the Breakfast Club.

Not to hijack the thread or anything but that is a great scene : )

Allison Reynolds : I'll do anything sexual. I don't need a million dollars to do it either.
Claire Standish : You're lying.
Allison Reynolds : I already have. I've done just about everything there is except a few things that are illegal. I'm a nymphomaniac.
Claire Standish : Lie.
Brian Johnson : Are your parents aware of this?
Allison Reynolds : The only person I told was my shrink.
Andrew Clark : And what did he do when you told him?
Allison Reynolds : He nailed me.
Claire Standish : Very nice.
Allison Reynolds : I don't think that from a legal standpoint what he did can be construed as rape, since I paid him.
Claire Standish : He's an adult.
Allison Reynolds : Yeah, he's married too.
Claire Standish : Do you have any idea how completely gross that is?
Allison Reynolds : Well, the first few times...
Claire Standish : The first few times? You mean you did it more than once?
Allison Reynolds : Sure.
Claire Standish : Are you crazy?
Brian Johnson : Obviously she's crazy if she's screwing a shrink.
Allison Reynolds : Have you ever done it?
Claire Standish : I don't even have a psychiatrist.
Allison Reynolds : Have you ever done it with a normal person?
Claire Standish : Didn't we already cover this?
John Bender : You never answered the question.
Claire Standish : Look, I'm not going to discuss my private life with total strangers.
Allison Reynolds : It's kind of a double edged sword isn't it?
Claire Standish : A what?
Allison Reynolds : Well, if you say you haven't, you're a prude. If you say you have you're a slut. It's a trap. You want to but you can't, and when you do you wish you didn't, right?
Claire Standish : Wrong.
Allison Reynolds : Or are you a tease?
Andrew Clark : She's a tease.
Claire Standish : I'm sure. Why don't you just forget it.
Andrew Clark : Oh, you're a tease and you know it. All girls are teases.
John Bender : She's only a tease if what she does gets you hot.
Claire Standish : I don't do anything.
Allison Reynolds : That's why you're a tease.
Claire Standish : OK, let me ask you a few questions.
Allison Reynolds : I already told you everything.
Claire Standish : No. Doesn't it bother you to sleep around without being in love. I mean, don't you want any respect?
Allison Reynolds : I don't screw to get respect. That's the difference between you and me.
Claire Standish : It's not the only difference I hope.
John Bender : Face it, you're a tease.
Claire Standish : I'm NOT a tease.
John Bender : Sure you are. Sex is your weapon. You said it yourself. You use it to get respect.
Claire Standish : No, I never said that she twisted my words around.
John Bender : What do you use it for then?
Claire Standish : I don't use it period.
John Bender : Oh, are you medically frigid or is it psychological?
Claire Standish : I didn't mean it that way. You guys are putting words into my mouth.
John Bender : Well, if you'd just answer the question.
Brian Johnson : Why don't you just answer the question?
Andrew Clark : Be honest.
John Bender : No big deal.
Brian Johnson : Yeah answer it.
Andrew Clark : Answer the question, Claire.
John Bender : Talk to us. Every one: C'mon, answer the question. Come on. Answer it.
John Bender : C'mon, it's easy. It's only one question.
Claire Standish : NO I NEVER DID IT.
Allison Reynolds : I never did it either. I'm not a nymphomaniac. I'm a compulsive liar.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 29, 2004, 4:01 am

But Winnow, how do you judge George Bush was the question, not how do you judge John Kerry.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 29, 2004, 4:58 am

Thess wrote:But Winnow, how do you judge George Bush was the question, not how do you judge John Kerry.

I give Bush a grade of C overall as president for the four years he's been in office. He's been average overall. I think he'll improve upon that in his second term. With no worries of reelection, he can do some things that may not necessarily be liked by the extreme right wingers. Second term presidents have the best opportunity to help the entire nation without as much partisan interference.

I have other people in mind that I think would do a better job than Bush but Kerry is not one of them. I'm more than happy to stick with an average president that has the same position on our national security that I have and take a fresh look in four years at the candidates and situation that surrounds them. I'll take a "dumb" mule that I know will stay focused on what he always has versus a sly fox that may end up raiding the hen house or be just as likely to run off in some other direction that I don't want.

I'll listen to pappa Bush and "stay the course" instead of change to the channel showing the movie, "Say Anything".

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 29, 2004, 11:59 am

Winnow wrote:I've been served.

LOL

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 29, 2004, 12:27 pm

on the subject of number of civilian casualties in Iraq...

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364 ... on.31137.1

login: veeshanvault
password: password

Interpretation: Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

i thought the number was closer to like 10-15,000, so i was pretty shocked. The Lancet is a pretty sober publication, but has had a few editorials that were not in favor of US foreign policy. But it is a medical journal, so a more humanitarian bent should be expected. That being said, it is a journal with very exacting standards, and I expect that this figure is probably pretty accurate.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 29, 2004, 5:21 pm

I'm more than happy to stick with an average president that has the same position on our national security that I have and take a fresh look in four years at the candidates and situation that surrounds them. I'll take a "dumb" mule that I know will stay focused on what he always has versus a sly fox that may end up raiding the hen house or be just as likely to run off in some other direction that I don't want.

The same position of not guarding Nuke plants, refuses to. Not to mention they are still in a fly zone. Our ports arnt protected,this was pointed out 2 years ago. How about not wanting to even have a 9/11 commision to find out what went wrong,and what things we need to fix? Then changing his mind it was a good idea after it alread started. 43 STATES arnt even prepared for a attack such as gas,or nuke.

Bush Cuts Funding for State and Local Homeland Security Grants by $800 Million. Bush cut funding to the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness, which supplies a variety of first-responder grants to state and local governments, by $800 million, to $3.6 billion in 2005 from $4.4 billion in 2004.

Bush cut FIRE Act grants for equipment and personnel to local fire departments by $246 million in his 2005 budget. According to the International Association of Firefighters, "The FIRE Act grant program has received $5 billion worth of requests," and "has awarded grants totaling just 10% of that need." Kevin O'Connor of the International Association of Firefighters said, "This [2005] budget is profoundly disappointing to first responders ... It's a continuation of the president's lack of commitment to first responders in general and firefighters in particular."

Bush's 2005 budget calls for $50 million for port security grants, down from $200 million in his 2004 budget. Seven million cargo containers arrive in US ports each year, but as few as 2 percent of those are screened. The CIA reported, "The United States is more likely to be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into the country aboard a ship than one delivered by a ballistic missile." And a 2003 Pentagon simulation found that even a "minor" attack on a US port could shut down all the ports for a month.

Less Than 10 Percent of the Nation's Border Agents Secure the Northern Border. Only 1,000 border agents patrol the United State's border with Canada, compared to 9,500 that patrol the nation's southern border. While the US-Mexico border is 2,000 miles long, the US-Canada border is 5,000 miles, meaning that only one agent patrols for every 5 miles of border. The Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, Canada's domestic anti-terrorism agency, has acknowledged that Al Qaeda maintains cells and personnel in Canada, which possess "the capability and conviction to provide support for terrorist activities in North America."

In Spite of 9-11, Bush was Slow to See the Need for a Department of Homeland Security. Bush opposed the creation of a cabinet agency for homeland security until Congress passed legislation creating it in November 2002, thus delaying its launch until February 2003. Former press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush told Congress "there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security," and Tom Ridge, then director of the non-agency White House Office of Homeland Security, said "I'd probably recommend that he veto" any bill creating a new agency.

If this is all fine with you, then so be it. It falls very short of my expectations of a Pres who swears up and down hes doing all he can to protect us. He has failed.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » October 29, 2004, 5:32 pm

While I agree with all the points Raistin made about port security, northern border security, etc etc. I think all of that is irrelevent when you have thousands of people crossing your southern border every day. Might as well stick a big kick me sign on your backs.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » October 29, 2004, 6:08 pm

Llaffer wrote:
Animalor wrote:Do you really want 4 more years of conflict in simultanious areas across the world?
Better anywhere else than on American Soil again. Stop them now before they can strike again.

I think this is one of Bush'es best quotes from the debates:

"We have to be right all of them time, they only have to be right once."

Hehe, considering how many mistakes the Bush administration have made, i wonder if it shouldnt be the other way around. That MIGHT be possible for Bush to fulfill if hes lucky.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 29, 2004, 9:19 pm

Anybody who thinks the War on Terror will prevent a terror attack from happening in the US is a fool. Another attack will come, no matter if you invade half the middle east or not. And no matter who is president.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 29, 2004, 9:28 pm

Kelshara wrote:Anybody who thinks the War on Terror will prevent a terror attack from happening in the US is a fool. Another attack will come, no matter if you invade half the middle east or not. And no matter who is president.

100% correct. You can mitigate, you can take out known terrorist organizations, you can build a world coalition to freeze assets, etc. You cannot stop a terrorist attack on American soil. There are entirely too many personal freedoms here.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 2, 2004, 11:30 am

Not only that Noel, it is the fundamental attitude of the American government (Bush's, This may change

) to ignore the political issues and make it a military situation.

Not only that, the war on terror is exponentially bigger now due to US actions.

It's sad but troo