bama, Since I saw your quote, I will respond. Since Clinton couldn't tell the truth about anything, does't it say a lot that Bush has lied FAR more than Clinton ever did?
This is so typical: nobody said anything about "never." I simply pointed out that, for many people, it boils down to 4 years of supreme experience versus 4 monhts of intense experience 30 years ago and a 19 year so-so Senate career.
Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it just seemed like you were trying to say 4 years of Presidential experience automatically makes the incumbent a better option. I think Kerry should talk more about his years in Senate than his time in Vietnam, and the other camp should be talking about Bush's decisions as president, not bashing Kerry. Oh, how I dream of having a legitimate 3rd party.
Crikey! Can we all at least agree that Clinton (both Hillary and Bill) are not running for election this year? Comparisons to the Clinton years are OK but one would think this thread was from 1996.
You didn't say that in wordsbut looking at the logic of your quote, you definitely did say that. (paraphrasing)You said how can Kerry with his experience couldn't be more prepared to be CiC than Bush who has 4 years of experience as Commander in Chief. Now if nothing can compete with 4 years as CiC, then are saying people should always vote for the incumbant, and that they should base that record on the President's experience.
Bush would be impeached already if there were a Democratic House and Senate. That is the only reason Clinton was impeached.
Has there ever been a president impeached by a friendly Congress? No. Impeachment is about politics, not anything else. Republicans hated Clinton, therefore they impeached him. Democrats hate Bush and they would impeach him if they had the vote.
There you go again! The original point made by JayZ750 was that the Republicans were not running on GWB's record. I don't think that is accurate. People can do what they want. Afterall, lots of soccer moms voted for Clinton because they thought he was sexy. Now that is a tribute to our political system! I know you will hardly be able to fathom this: some endorse GWB's handling of the war on terrorism. There have been rough spots for sure, but militant Muslims are threatening to be the bane of our existence unless they are exterminated. Some of those 19 hijackers on 9/11 had been here awhile. They were able to enjoy the freedoms of Americans. As I recall a couple of them even celebrated at a titty bar just a few nights before 9/11. And they still doomed thousands of people to their deaths.
Giddy if people like W's handling of war I don't have a problem with that. GWB isn't running on his record. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a record. He does have it and some people like it. In his speech last night Bush talked a lot about his plans for the future. He didn't mention how his plans for the first 4 years went very much, because he isn't running on that. But you said that his 4 years as commander in chief trump Kerry's experience. The logic I used isn't different than that statement. Because no challenger for the office will have 4 years as CiC, and almost every incumbant will. By using that logic, every vote would go to the incumbant.
In a thread a few weeks ago, the argument was made that Kerry's 19 year senatorial career made him more fit to be president than Bush's gubernatorial career. Fair enough-- except it's not 2000. It's 2004 and Bush has 4 years as CiC and Kerry just had 4 more mediocre years as a senator. Things I heard last night about the last four years: - three-fourths of AQ's leadership is either dead or in jail - Iraq and Afghanistan are well rid of their tyrannical governments - home ownership is at an all-time high - Federal education programs - Tax cuts Those are some just off the top of my head. Things in the US aren't as good as we all would like them, but the anti-Republicans are standing on the rubble of 9/11 and pointing fingers of blame and mocking a president who is not as articulate as they would like.
Clinton was impeached for lying and nobody died as a reult of HIS lies. If the Dems were in power in the Congress, they would have impeached him for misleading the country into war, or for a member of his administration outing Plame, or for any number of things.
That is good, but since we left Afghanistan and invaded Iraq, the last 1/4 of AQ's leaders have had a boom in recruiting and by most people's estimates, AQ is nearly as strong today as it ever was. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has been making a comeback because we didn't finish the job there. A high that occurred BEFORE GWB took office. Have been slashed, NCLB has left millions behind since it has not been funded, and the reductions in federal contributions to the states have caused college tuition costs to skyrocket. ...during the middle of a war have pushed the deficit to record levels, guaranteeing that someone else will have to work to reduce it. Whatever. I am no "anti-republican," I would MUCH prefer to have a GOP candidate to vote for, but this president has MUCH bigger problems than not being articulate.
Andy said pretty much what I was going to say. But the the 3/4 of al-Qaeda leadership dead an imprisoned has already been replaced and the number of terrorists in the group has increased. That home ownership always gets me. Home ownership was already at an all time high when Bush came to office. It's good that he didn't let go backwards, like has happened with jobs, though. Let me tell you about No Child Left Behind. It's horrible. It isn't funded and it's stupid. If a child comes to your school 2 weeks before testing speaking no English, he will be tested just the same as anyone else. That child can not have a translation of the test into his native language, can not be given extra time, or anything of the sort. That child's score will be held against him and the school. If a child has Autism, or any kind of physical handicap that requires him to write in a different way or take longer to complete a task modifications can be made, but his score for the testing will automatically be placed in the lowest category regardless of how many answers he gets correct. So a child who is capable of answering everything correctly but needs extra time because of a birth defect, or the result of an accident, or anything, will be placed in the lowest possible category of test results, and it counts against the school. I teach at a school that is 100% impoverished, with many students who require special day classes because of physical handicaps, emotional disorders, etc. To see these children get an unfair shake at things because of Bush's unfunded No Child Left Behind is ridiculous.
<b>Originally posted by andymoon That is good, but since we left Afghanistan and invaded Iraq, the last 1/4 of AQ's leaders have had a boom in recruiting and by most people's estimates, AQ is nearly as strong today as it ever was.</b> Bring on the rookies. AQ was bound to go on the increase because with 9/11 a war was openly declared on the US that had only been vaguely declared before-- seen when connecting the dots. <b>In Afghanistan, the Taliban has been making a comeback because we didn't finish the job there.</b> Let me know if they start shooting women in the soccer stadium again. If they try to come back we'll mow them down again. Last time it took 3 weeks or something didn't it? <b>A high that occurred BEFORE GWB took office.</b> Not according to these stats: http://www.danter.com/statistics/homeown.htm <b>Have been slashed, NCLB has left millions behind since it has not been funded, and the reductions in federal contributions to the states have caused college tuition costs to skyrocket.</b> <b>...during the middle of a war have pushed the deficit to record levels, guaranteeing that someone else will have to work to reduce it.</b> What is the timing here? Weren't the tax cuts promised first? Then the war broke out. <b>Whatever. I am no "anti-republican," I would MUCH prefer to have a GOP candidate to vote for, but this president has MUCH bigger problems than not being articulate.</B> Have you ever voted for a GOP candidate? What did Bush say last night: ~"When you have faults, everybody knows them. When you have strengths, you always have to use them."
<b>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade Let me tell you about No Child Left Behind. It's horrible. It isn't funded and it's stupid. If a child comes to your school 2 weeks before testing speaking no English, he will be tested just the same as anyone else. That child can not have a translation of the test into his native language, can not be given extra time, or anything of the sort. That child's score will be held against him and the school.</b> I'm not and I don't know who is claimng that it is the end-all be-all of educational reform. Tell that child and his parents to try this: learn some English. American kids that come to school are not taught English up from zero. Their skills are refined. English is our language. Why is it too much to expect our citizens, even our youngest citizens, to try and fit it?
You missed the point. They do learn English. That's why they are in school. They are being taught English. But if they arrive from Thailand not knowing the language that's not their fault. But they still have to test in English. If they arrived at Armenia on Weds. not knowing English and show up on Thus. if Thus. is test day, they have to take the test in English. Nobody is saying they shouldn't learn English. What I'm saying is that it's stupid to have a third grade newcomer to the country arrive in class one week or one day before testing, and have to test that child in English and expect those results to be valid. The school I'm at offers English classes to the parents too. They are making an effort to learn. Are youngest citizens are learning it, but they don't learn it over night. That's ridiculous. To sit back and suggest that someone needs to tell them to learn it, because they are in a country is a pointless thing to a 7 year old in second grade, who just arrived in the U.S. two weeks ago. That child is learning it. It is only a benefit to them to learn English, and they are the ones that suffer if they don't. So I'm not worried about any kind needless one official English language law. They should learn it because it will improve their lives and opportunities here.
So you did vote for Clinton in 96 since he had 4 years as CiC vs a combat veteran in Dole with senate experience? and then you voted for Gore since he had much more Foreign Policy experience as a Senator and the VP directly under the CiC for 8 years v. some redneck with no foreign policy experience? I'm confused...
