PDA

View Full Version : Question for Kerry Supporters


redbrian
10-18-2004, 09:00 AM
If (God forbid) Kerry gets elected, how many days, months or years does he get to right the ship, and have to start accepting blame for all the ills of the world (and not blame the past administration)?

Just curious as to how long of a honeymoon he should receive, in your opinion.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 09:02 AM
4 years, just like Bush has gotten.

redbrian
10-18-2004, 09:21 AM
4 years, just like Bush has gotten.

Sorry but just the fact that this board exists proves you wrong, the left started to blame Bush before he took office.

During the election, Gore's political group blamed Bush for talking down the economy.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 09:25 AM
Sorry but just the fact that this board exists proves you wrong, the left started to blame Bush before he took office.

During the election, Gore's political group blamed Bush for talking down the economy.
And the right has blamed Clinton for 9/11, the economy, etc. Works both ways.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 09:28 AM
And the right has blamed Clinton for 9/11, the economy, etc. Works both ways.Clinton's administration should share the blame of 9/11 with the current administration. To blame the status of the economy on the POTUS is just silly...

Cochise
10-18-2004, 09:31 AM
They blamed Bush for the economy turning down right as he took office.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 09:34 AM
IMO as soon as someone takes office, if it happens under their watch, its their problem. Blaming someone else will most certainly not help alleviate the problem.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 09:37 AM
IMO as soon as someone takes office, if it happens under their watch, its their problem. Blaming someone else will most certainly not help alleviate the problem.

So if there are leading economic indicators months in advance telling of a coming downturn, as soon as the next guy takes office it's automatically his fault. Especially on things like the economy, where changes in policy take months or years to fully take effect. :rolleyes:

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 09:40 AM
So if there are leading economic indicators months in advance telling of a coming downturn, as soon as the next guy takes office it's automatically his fault. Especially on things like the economy, where changes in policy take months or years to fully take effect. :rolleyes:
Thats the way it works in the real world. When I get a new job, I can't continually blame my ineffectiveness on the person that held the position before me. Would it be my fault that the problems exist? Surely no, but would it be my fault that the problems are not being resolved? Yup.

redbrian
10-18-2004, 09:40 AM
IMO as soon as someone takes office, if it happens under their watch, its their problem. Blaming someone else will most certainly not help alleviate the problem.

That's stepping up and taking (again God forbid it should happen), your lumps, I salute you, (but can you take that much mental anguish, after this season with K-State and the Chiefs, the resulting stress of Kerry’s failure could send you over the edge, I guess you could always go to the Netherlands or hook up with the Chiefs suicide pact) j/k

headsnap
10-18-2004, 09:40 AM
So if there are leading economic indicators months in advance telling of a coming downturn, as soon as the next guy takes office it's automatically his fault. Especially on things like the economy, where changes in policy take months or years to fully take effect. :rolleyes:
the economy is currently on the upswing, SBG wants Kerry to get the credit if(God forbid) he wins the election. ;)

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 09:41 AM
That's stepping up and taking (again God forbid it should happen), your lumps, I salute you, (but can you take that much mental anguish, after this season with K-State and the Chiefs, the resulting stress of Kerry’s failure could send you over the edge, I guess you could always go to the Netherlands or hook up with the Chiefs suicide pact) j/k
C'est la Vie.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 09:41 AM
IMO as soon as someone takes office, if it happens under their watch, its their problem. Blaming someone else will most certainly not help alleviate the problem.So, we can safely blame Clinton for the 1st attack on the WTC? I never blamed him for that. I have, though, roasted him for not being more active against terrorism. Like Bush is now.

Frankie
10-18-2004, 09:41 AM
If (God forbid) Kerry gets elected, how many days, months or years does he get to right the ship, and have to start accepting blame for all the ills of the world (and not blame the past administration)?

Just curious as to how long of a honeymoon he should receive, in your opinion.
Neo-cons gave Clinton exactly NO HONEYMOON. What makes you think they will give president Kerry any?:shrug:

Lbedrock1
10-18-2004, 09:41 AM
If (God forbid) Kerry gets elected, how many days, months or years does he get to right the ship, and have to start accepting blame for all the ills of the world (and not blame the past administration)?

Just curious as to how long of a honeymoon he should receive, in your opinion.
I gave Bush three so like every other prez he gets three. Their last year is pretty much just campaigning anyway.

redbrian
10-18-2004, 09:45 AM
Neo-cons gave Clinton exactly NO HONEYMOON. What makes you think they will give president Kerry any?:shrug:

But you guys are so much more civil than the neo-cons, so from a liberal edict stand point how long?

Or to put it another way how long do you give Kerry to perform his miracle that he has promised to the public.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 09:46 AM
Neo-cons gave Clinton exactly NO HONEYMOON. What makes you think they will give president Kerry any?:shrug:Willy had no honeymoon because of what happened early in his presidency - 1st WTC attack and Waco...

Cochise
10-18-2004, 09:46 AM
the economy is currently on the upswing, SBG wants Kerry to get the credit if(God forbid) he wins the election. ;)

Bingo

Everyone just remember this, if God forbid sKerry was able to win somehow. Saul says the minute he would take the oath would be the minute he's to blame for anything that happens.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 09:46 AM
Willy had no honeymoon because of what happened early in his presidency - 1st WTC attack and Waco...

What, you don't think the Waco situation was handled masterfully? :rolleyes:

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 09:47 AM
Bingo

Everyone just remember this, if God forbid sKerry was able to win somehow. Saul says the minute he would take the oath would be the minute he's to blame for anything that happens.
Works for me. I could give a shit less who gets credit for what.

Frankie
10-18-2004, 09:54 AM
Clinton's administration should share the blame of 9/11 with the current administration....
Dang it! Read something man! Clinton's administration was very likely responsible for 9/11 ('01) not happening on 1/01 ('00). Clinton held daily meetings of the heads of security and intelligence agencies so they would work TOGETHER on preventing something big on the milleneum. Something that Duhbya FAILED TO DO even after the outgoing Clinton Administration directly warned them about terrorism being the no.1 worry.

Whereas the Clinton administration had to learn, on the job, the new nature of terrorism, the Bush administration had it spoon fed to them. In football terms they were given the ball, with a decent hole opened and THEY FUMBLED!!

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 09:56 AM
Dang it! Read something man! Clinton's administration was very likely responsible for 9/11 ('01) not happening on 1/01 ('00). Clinton held daily meetings of the heads of security and intelligence agencies so they would work TOGETHER on preventing something big on the milleneum. Something that Duhbya FAILED TO DO even after the outgoing Clinton Administration directly warned them about terrorism being the no.1 worry.

Whereas the Clinton administration had to learn, on the job, the new nature of terrorism, the Bush administration had it spoon fed to them. In football terms they were given the ball, with a decent hole opened and THEY FUMBLED!!Nice deflection...

Cochise
10-18-2004, 09:57 AM
Dang it! Read something man! Clinton's administration was very likely responsible for 9/11 ('01) not happening on 1/01 ('00). Clinton held daily meetings of the heads of security and intelligence agencies so they would work TOGETHER on preventing something big on the milleneum. Something that Duhbya FAILED TO DO even after the outgoing Clinton Administration directly warned them about terrorism being the no.1 worry.

Whereas the Clinton administration had to learn, on the job, the new nature of terrorism, the Bush administration had it spoon fed to them. In football terms they were given the ball, with a decent hole opened and THEY FUMBLED!!

Was it a fumble when Clinton was too busy playing golf to OK an airstrike on Osama Bin Laden?

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 09:58 AM
Dang it! Read something man! Clinton's administration was very likely responsible for 9/11 ('01) not happening on 1/01 ('00). Clinton held daily meetings of the heads of security and intelligence agencies so they would work TOGETHER on preventing something big on the milleneum. Something that Duhbya FAILED TO DO even after the outgoing Clinton Administration directly warned them about terrorism being the no.1 worry.

Whereas the Clinton administration had to learn, on the job, the new nature of terrorism, the Bush administration had it spoon fed to them. In football terms they were given the ball, with a decent hole opened and THEY FUMBLED!!Tell me something. What proactive stance did Clinton have after the 1st attack?

Frankie
10-18-2004, 09:58 AM
But you guys are so much more civil than the neo-cons, so from a liberal edict stand point how long?

Or to put it another way how long do you give Kerry to perform his miracle that he has promised to the public.

This having been ineptly bungled into a Viet Nam type situation would be very hard to gracefully repair even in a full term. :shake: Sad but, I'm afraid, true.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 10:00 AM
Dang it! Read something man! Clinton's administration was very likely responsible for 9/11 ('01) not happening on 1/01 ('00). Clinton held daily meetings of the heads of security and intelligence agencies so they would work TOGETHER on preventing something big on the milleneum. Something that Duhbya FAILED TO DO even after the outgoing Clinton Administration directly warned them about terrorism being the no.1 worry.

Whereas the Clinton administration had to learn, on the job, the new nature of terrorism, the Bush administration had it spoon fed to them. In football terms they were given the ball, with a decent hole opened and THEY FUMBLED!!What about the time the Sudan had bin Laden and could've served him up to us on a silver platter?

Frankie
10-18-2004, 10:00 AM
Willy had no honeymoon because of what happened early in his presidency - 1st WTC attack and Waco...

Willy had no honeymoon from DAY 1.

Donger
10-18-2004, 10:01 AM
Dang it! Read something man! Clinton's administration was very likely responsible for 9/11 ('01) not happening on 1/01 ('00). Clinton held daily meetings of the heads of security and intelligence agencies so they would work TOGETHER on preventing something big on the milleneum. Something that Duhbya FAILED TO DO even after the outgoing Clinton Administration directly warned them about terrorism being the no.1 worry.

Whereas the Clinton administration had to learn, on the job, the new nature of terrorism, the Bush administration had it spoon fed to them. In football terms they were given the ball, with a decent hole opened and THEY FUMBLED!!

Clinton was not responsible for 9/11, nor was Bush. Osama bin Laden was.

But, I do blame Clinton for for treating terrorism as a matter of law enforcement when al Qaeda had clearly declared war against us.

redbrian
10-18-2004, 10:01 AM
This having been ineptly bungled into a Viet Nam type situation would be very hard to gracefully repair even in a full term. :shake: Sad but, I'm afraid, true.

Please tell me how this is even remotely like Viet., I’m sorry but as much as Kerry and his ilk try and spin it this, there is no comparison of the two, other than both involved US soldiers.

Duck Dog
10-18-2004, 10:02 AM
Neo-cons gave Clinton exactly NO HONEYMOON. What makes you think they will give president Kerry any?:shrug:


ROFL

Are you gay?





No offense D.C.

Frankie
10-18-2004, 10:03 AM
Tell me something. What proactive stance did Clinton have after the 1st attack?

Whatever he did, it took almost a decade and the new inept administration for them to try again. :shake:

Amnorix
10-18-2004, 10:06 AM
If (God forbid) Kerry gets elected, how many days, months or years does he get to right the ship, and have to start accepting blame for all the ills of the world (and not blame the past administration)?

Just curious as to how long of a honeymoon he should receive, in your opinion.

From Republicans it will be approximately 0.0000000000001 seconds

From Democrats it will be 4 or 8 years, depending on, err, certain circumstances.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 10:06 AM
Whatever he did, it took almost a decade and the new inept administration for them to try again. :shake:Huh?

Frankie
10-18-2004, 10:08 AM
Clinton was not responsible for 9/11, nor was Bush. Osama bin Laden was.

But, I do blame Clinton for for treating terrorism as a matter of law enforcement when al Qaeda had clearly declared war against us.
Clinton did not have the benefit of having another administration going through the growing pains of how to handle a new phenomena. Whether he made mistakes is a matter of partisan interpretation and with the benefit of hindsight. The current administration had had the food chewed for them. All they had to do was to swallow. They were too inept to even do that. :banghead:

Cochise
10-18-2004, 10:09 AM
Thats the way it works in the real world. When I get a new job, I can't continually blame my ineffectiveness on the person that held the position before me. Would it be my fault that the problems exist? Surely no, but would it be my fault that the problems are not being resolved? Yup.

BTW I will quote this if sKerry wins and cuts and runs from Iraq. And it will happen, he cannot lead a party that hates military action in all its forms and stay there for long.

So, upon retreat from Iraq, I'll make sure to quote that since it happened on his watch that it's his fault. (just like Vietnam was Nixon's fault, or so the George Mcgovern's of the world would have you believe.)

redbrian
10-18-2004, 10:11 AM
From Republicans it will be approximately 0.0000000000001 seconds

From Democrats it will be 4 or 8 years, depending on, err, certain circumstances.

So you are going to give Kerry 8 years to fix all the problems, but Bush 0, that sounds about right.

Frankie
10-18-2004, 10:12 AM
What about the time the Sudan had bin Laden and could've served him up to us on a silver platter?
That story is full of holes. There are links that discuss both sides. I've read a few in the past. But I'd do a non-partisan search on it if I were you.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 10:12 AM
BTW I will quote this if sKerry wins and cuts and runs from Iraq. And it will happen, he cannot lead a party that hates military action in all its forms and stay there for long.

So, upon retreat from Iraq, I'll make sure to quote that since it happened on his watch that it's his fault. (just like Vietnam was Nixon's fault, or so the George Mcgovern's of the world would have you believe.)
Ok. If that makes you feel better, and sleep well at night. If Kerry is elected, and makes a poor decision (in my opinion), I will call him on it.

Donger
10-18-2004, 10:13 AM
That story is full of holes. There are links that discuss both sides. I've read a few in the past. But I'd do a non-partisan search on it if I were you.

Would you like Clinton's own words on the subject?

Frankie
10-18-2004, 10:15 AM
ROFL

Are you gay?

No offense D.C.
Iowanian complained that I too often point out lack of intelligence. Respecting him, I must...... resist......... it....now.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 10:15 AM
Would you like Clinton's own words on the subject?Post them, please. I'm not sure if I've ever seen them...

Donger
10-18-2004, 10:19 AM
Post them, please. I'm not sure if I've ever seen them...

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton explained to a Feb. 15 Long Island Association luncheon.

"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

"They released him," the ex-president confirmed.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have," Clinton explained. "But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 10:26 AM
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton explained to a Feb. 15 Long Island Association luncheon.

"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.

"They released him," the ex-president confirmed.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have," Clinton explained. "But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."Nice. Thanks, I have not read that before...

Cochise
10-18-2004, 10:28 AM
Was it a fumble when Clinton was too busy playing golf to OK an airstrike on Osama Bin Laden?

I am mixing this up. To correct myself, it was an airstrike in Iraq that he was too busy playing golf to OK, refusing Sandy Berger's calls while planes were enroute to the target.

The Sudan incident was the one where Washington was negotiating for his Bin Laden's arrest but in the end didn't make it happen and asked Saudi to take him. It's too bad that the danger wasn't seen at the time and we didn't make that preemptive strike.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 11:39 AM
4 years, just like Bush has gotten.
At least you are honest in your disingenious aspirations.

go bowe
10-18-2004, 12:30 PM
But you guys are so much more civil than the neo-cons, so from a liberal edict stand point how long?

Or to put it another way how long do you give Kerry to perform his miracle that he has promised to the public.even if kerry wins, there won't be an "miracles" from him so long as the congress is controlled by the republicans...

while i support the president, i am uneasy with continued control of the executive and legislative branches by just one party...

having the parties hold one or the other makes it more likely that moderate policies will be implemented, imo...

Iowanian
10-18-2004, 01:50 PM
I would like just once, to hear EXACTLY which Natinon(s) will be bringing numbers of troops, at the level of his acceptability(more than UK apparently)..............upon his election.

Who?
How Many?

I wish he had the sack to just come out and say "france and germany didn't help, but will put 2 divisions in Iraq if I'm elected".

They won't.

How exactly is he planning on funding, manning, supplying and training 2 new divisions and stand them up, while doubling the Special Forces(not a bad Idea IMO).....How soon does he think he can do that?

He accuses Bush of the draft, but HE is the candidate speaking of adding 40,000 troops.

redbrian
10-18-2004, 01:52 PM
I would like just once, to hear EXACTLY which Natinon(s) will be bringing numbers of troops, at the level of his acceptability(more than UK apparently)..............upon his election.

Who?
How Many?

I wish he had the sack to just come out and say "france and germany didn't help, but will put 2 divisions in Iraq if I'm elected".

They won't.

How exactly is he planning on funding, manning, supplying and training 2 new divisions and stand them up, while doubling the Special Forces(not a bad Idea IMO).....How soon does he think he can do that?

He accuses Bush of the draft, but HE is the candidate speaking of adding 40,000 troops.

While maintaining our NATO and Pacific Rim basses at present staffing.

Iowanian
10-18-2004, 01:53 PM
Well.....as we know, General Kerry wouldn't pull any troops out of South Korea...........He'd be preparing to wage war on North Korea and Iran.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 01:58 PM
I would like just once, to hear EXACTLY which Natinon(s) will be bringing numbers of troops, at the level of his acceptability(more than UK apparently)..............upon his election.

Who?
How Many?

Well, as maligned as the UK is for 'only' being, what, 10% of the force, it will be a tall order.

Who exactly is sKerry going to sweet talk at his "summit" into sending not just a couple of troops but tens of thousands to exceed the amount that liberals have been criticizing from the UK?


How exactly is he planning on funding, manning, supplying and training 2 new divisions and stand them up, while doubling the Special Forces(not a bad Idea IMO).....How soon does he think he can do that?

Uh... with the take hike on the rich that's also going to pay for the trillions of other things he's proposing. Allegedly.


He accuses Bush of the draft, but HE is the candidate speaking of adding 40,000 troops.

It's funny how he accuses Bush of secretly planning a draft, as you note, but then acknowledges that the amount of troops that would be needed for his "overwhelming force" could be recruited through normal means.

Saulbadguy
10-18-2004, 02:18 PM
I would like just once, to hear EXACTLY which Natinon(s) will be bringing numbers of troops, at the level of his acceptability(more than UK apparently)..............upon his election.

Who?
How Many?

I wish he had the sack to just come out and say "france and germany didn't help, but will put 2 divisions in Iraq if I'm elected".

They won't.

How exactly is he planning on funding, manning, supplying and training 2 new divisions and stand them up, while doubling the Special Forces(not a bad Idea IMO).....How soon does he think he can do that?

He accuses Bush of the draft, but HE is the candidate speaking of adding 40,000 troops.
Does it matter? Would you vote for him if he laid out all of these facts on a nice little television ad?

Iowanian
10-18-2004, 02:32 PM
Probably Not Saul.........because I don't respect 2 things. 1. His congressional voting record 2. What he did upon returning from Vietnam

That said..........If I felt he were anything more than a political oportunist and war basher, my vote could have been garnered.

I See that Kerry's mouth is moving, but I'm not seeing specifics........instead of saying "i'll get a coalition"......Shout it out........WHO can he get to put in Divisions of troops into Harms way? France? Thats who he means..............Whats the cost going to be?

He talks about "leveling with the American People".....Great...........I love that.............Why Bullshit me now?

Which nations, not currently helping in Iraq are sending 20,000 troops?

name them. When are they coming.

How Exactly is he going to get me cheaper insurance, than the 500 deductible, Free to me, Single plan Blue Cross I have now?

How exactly is he going to save Social security by maintaining a plan that isn't working?

How is he not going to raise my taxes, by just getting rid of the Bush Tax cut....which will in effect, raise my taxes?

Exactly HOW is he going to create all of the jobs he claims he can, while raising the taxes on small business?


I've got alot of problems with the democratic candidate........

Boozer
10-18-2004, 02:42 PM
I've previously made this statement, but will reaffirm it:

I vow to keep bitching regardless of who wins next month.

Iowanian
10-18-2004, 02:58 PM
As long as you vote.........you have that right.

Boozer
10-18-2004, 03:06 PM
As long as you vote.........you have that right.

Already voted...sent out my ballot this morning. I'm bitch-certified (on national issues) for the next two years.