1. #76
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    7. Who could Joe Lieberman choose as a running mate who would not overshadow him? Then again I don't think we have to worry about Lieberman choosing a running mate.

    Kucinich
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  2. #77
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Maybe so; but Bill Clinton is not the president...and he didn't invade another nation.
    Clinton never attacked Iraq?

  3. #78
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    770

    Default

    "There is no doubt in anyone's mind that on the day I left office, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

    ~Bill Clinton on Larry King Live , 2003

  4. #79
    MembersZone Subscriber
    EFD840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Eclectic (no, NOT electric), Alabama
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Noz,

    The point of my post wasn't to open a discussion of the war's moral justification, there's already a thread on that subject. I was just posting the Kerry and Clinton info to show how I don't think a Kerry ticket can use the war to score many points against Bush.

    I think any effort by Kerry to imply that the war was wrong because we haven't found WMDs will backfire in a big way because for a long, long time he's been saying on the record that Saddam was was a threat because of his WMD program. He can't flip on the issue now, the RNC attack ads will write themselves. The voters will be left with a choice of two candidates, both of which said the same thing but only one willing to admit it now that they've been proven wrong. It just won't work.

    You're absoultely right that the war could be a huge liability to President Bush, but I don't think Kerry can score points with it. Dean or Edwards could, but it doesn't look like they'll be the nominee.

    Oddly enough, Kerry's biggest help right now seems to be Bush himself. The president seems to be going out of his way to alienate both fiscal conservatives with spending increases and social conservatives with his immigration policy. Not that these folks are going to run to Kerry, but they might just stay home and that's almost as good in a close race. I also think moderates will see these as an attempt to buy their vote, which may backfire on Bush as badly as a war flip-flop would hurt Kerry.

  5. #80
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Clinton never attacked Iraq?
    George in the interest of honesty Nozz didn't say that. He said invade. There is a difference.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  6. #81
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by Duffman


    George in the interest of honesty Nozz didn't say that. He said invade. There is a difference.
    That is what I thought someone would say. That is a debate similar to figurubg out what "is" means.

    Violating the "sanctity" of another country (if that is your argument-it's not mine) happens if you use one missile or one hundred thousand troops. The only difference is the logistics.

  7. #82
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    I'm not here to support or tear down the former President. What he did during his terms is history, and open to discussion. However, my original point was not to turn the thread towards the war; merely to point out that it will be Bush's undoing in the next year. The polls already reflect that, and we haven't seen anything, yet. It is quite obvious that the threat that the Bush administration painted of Iraq was not true. Bush's waffle act on WMD and the ongoing war is hurting him and his bid for re-election. The right-wing push to label anyone who questions the war as treasonous and traitors is just about played out. As I've said before on this forum, there was no justification for invading Iraq, let alone the reasons Bush gave us. He cannot blame "faulty intelligence," for you all know that you can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility. My mention of all this was simply me reflecting its effect on the upcoming election.

  8. #83
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Your opinion is well taken. But as fir your "You have n't seen anything yet" refernce.

    Remember, the President has not even started to campaign yet. He is a master campaigner (if that is a word) and whether its Kerry, Dean or you, he will come out swinging.

  9. #84
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Remember, the President has not even started to campaign yet. He is a master campaigner (if that is a word) and whether its Kerry, Dean or you, he will come out swinging.
    Aye, but the whole war thing is leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, many of which are not really vocal about it, including his former supporters. I voted for Bush, and against Gore, the last time around. Boy, do I regret it! I thought to my self, "Anything is better than Gore." I couldn't have been more wrong, in my opinion.

  10. #85
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    Aye, but the whole war thing is leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, many of which are not really vocal about it, including his former supporters. I voted for Bush, and against Gore, the last time around. Boy, do I regret it! I thought to my self, "Anything is better than Gore." I couldn't have been more wrong, in my opinion.
    Ask yourself this question...would Al Gore have handled the war on terror (not Iraq), in the aftermath of 9/11 better than President Bush? When you honestly answer that question, you will see why that vote was the smartest move you ever made.

  11. #86
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Remember, the President has not even started to campaign yet. He is a master campaigner (if that is a word) and whether its Kerry, Dean or you, he will come out swinging.
    Who are you kidding. He has been campaigning for over a year. How many fundraisers has he attended? For crying out loud he used the State of the Union address as a campaign speech.

    I just heard on C-Span that the Bush campaign spent 31 million in 2003. They raised over 130 million. If that isn't campaigning I don't know what is.

    A good campaigner, I don't know. Al Gore lost the election by one vote of the Supreme Court. Had Ralph Nader not ran, Gore would have one. I didn't think Gore ran a great campaign. Bush may be on shaky ground.

    Ask yourself this question...would Al Gore have handled the war on terror (not Iraq), in the aftermath of 9/11 better than President Bush? When you honestly answer that question, you will see why that vote was the smartest move you ever made.
    George, thank you for recognizing that Iraq is not a part of the war on terror as advertised by the Bush administration.

    As for how Gore would have handled the pursuit of Bin Laden. To assume that the only "honest" conclusion is that Gore would have done worse is foolish. I can think of about 130,000 troops and a whole lot of $ that would have been at his disposal.
    Last edited by Duffman; 02-01-2004 at 02:57 AM.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  12. #87
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Who are you kidding. He has been campaigning for over a year. How many fundraisers has he attended? For crying out loud he used the State of the Union address as a campaign speech.

    I just heard on C-Span that the Bush campaign spent 31 million in 2003. They raised over 130 million. If that isn't campaigning I don't know what is.

    A good campaigner, I don't know. Al Gore lost the election by one vote of the Supreme Court. Had Ralph Nader not ran, Gore would have one. I didn't think Gore ran a great campaign. Bush may be on shaky ground.
    I'm not talking about private fund raisers. I'm talking about being out on the street, campaigning against Kerry or whoever.

    BTW, if we are going to play if, IF Perot hadn't run, Clinton would have never been President and Gore would be a trivia question answer.
    George, thank you for recognizing that Iraq is not a part of the war on terror as advertised by the Bush administration.
    I'm still rasslin' with that one. I just took it out of play for the purpose of finding some common ground in this debate.
    As for how Gore would have handled the pursuit of Bin Laden. To assume that the only "honest" conclusion is that Gore would have done worse is foolish. I can think of about 130,000 troops and a whole lot of $ that would have been at his disposal.
    I don't think it would have been foolish at all. I think we can expect that he would have the same policies as his sugar Daddy Clinton and we would still be playing the appeasement game with them.

  13. #88
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Ask yourself this question...would Al Gore have handled the war on terror (not Iraq), in the aftermath of 9/11 better than President Bush? When you honestly answer that question, you will see why that vote was the smartest move you ever made.
    I think Gore would have handled it better. In my opinion, the Bush administration has fouled up just about everything they've touched. And I dispute that voting for Bush was smart at all; in fact, it was pretty stupid of me.

  14. #89
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    I think Gore would have handled it better. In my opinion, the Bush administration has fouled up just about everything they've touched. And I dispute that voting for Bush was smart at all; in fact, it was pretty stupid of me.
    While I respect your opinion, you are definitely in a very small minority. Even many Dems do not believe he would have handled it better. Your hatred for GWB is well known, and that is fine.

  15. #90
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    770

    Default

    Originally posted by Duffman
    Who are you kidding. He has been campaigning for over a year. How many fundraisers has he attended? For crying out loud he used the State of the Union address as a campaign speech.

    Talk about a selective viewpoint. Just TRY and name a President who's never done the same in the election year of their first term.

  16. #91
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    While I respect your opinion, you are definitely in a very small minority. Even many Dems do not believe he would have handled it better. Your hatred for GWB is well known, and that is fine.
    Settle down, my friend. I'm not a hater, nor have I ever stated that I hated GWB (or anyone, for that matter). I hate his arrogance and his attitude. I hate his stupid policy for getting us into a senseless war in a dirty little country. I hate that he and his oil loving, power-hungry cronies have lied through their teeth in order to pursuade the Nation to support this war. As for Democrats not believing that Gore would have handled this issue better; now THERE'S a minority. As for me being in a minority...well, according to some recent polls, that seems to be changing every day. People and the press are no longer afraid to question why the war was really started, for fear of being labeled commies, cowards, traitors, or engaging in treasonous actions.

  17. #92
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default What I would like to see...

    Is a good old fashioned campaign. A true GOP vs.Democrat debate. Forget the term "special interest" becaue we know THEY ALL HAVE SPECIAL INTERESTS. In Illinois we have lost as many jobs as anywhere in the U.S., probably more then most States. I think if Kerry wins the nomination it would be good for the country. We need discussion and debate. Believe it or not, people support our troops and invading Iraq, but still wont vote for the President. It will be a good race. And like it or not, there are many Democrats who want revenge for the 2000 fiasco.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  18. #93
    MembersZone Subscriber
    EFD840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Eclectic (no, NOT electric), Alabama
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Wow, this has been a great discussion! Thanks to everyone for keeping it civil.

    according to some recent polls, that seems to be changing every day
    I wouldn't put too much stock in ANY poll right now. They will sway with the momentum of the latest primary. The same thing happens after each party convention. If Kerry's poll lead doesn't get to 10 points or better in the next few weeks he had better get worried. Right now he's in a honeymoon period but it ain't gonna last. He's going to get continually hammered with his anti-defense votes. He might also have a problem with his votes to drastically cut intelligence funding.

    I've got a question for you northeastern guys. Do you think Rudy on the ticket would be enough to swing New York?

  19. #94
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    Settle down, my friend. I'm not a hater, nor have I ever stated that I hated GWB (or anyone, for that matter). I hate his arrogance and his attitude. I hate his stupid policy for getting us into a senseless war in a dirty little country. I hate that he and his oil loving, power-hungry cronies have lied through their teeth in order to pursuade the Nation to support this war. As for Democrats not believing that Gore would have handled this issue better; now THERE'S a minority. As for me being in a minority...well, according to some recent polls, that seems to be changing every day. People and the press are no longer afraid to question why the war was really started, for fear of being labeled commies, cowards, traitors, or engaging in treasonous actions.
    I'm completely calm. I am respecting your opinion. But there are two continual flaws in your logic. First, you have never offered at least the tiniest bit of documentation that the war in Iraq is about oil. Because it is not. Second, the war on terror is much larger, arguably seperate from the Iraq war.
    I've got a question for you northeastern guys. Do you think Rudy on the ticket would be enough to swing New York?
    YES! And hopefully NJ, too.

  20. #95
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,701

    Question

    Correct me if I'm wrong as I may be since I live in NJ and did not follow NYC politics too much, but wasn't Rudy hated prior to 9/11? I seem to remember him not being too fondly spoken of before then.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  21. #96
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Talk about a selective viewpoint. Just TRY and name a President who's never done the same in the election year of their first term.
    C-buff there is nothing selective about my viewpoint.

    What I said is true. Yes others have done it as well. I responded to a comment on Bush specifically. What other Presidents have or have not done is irrelevent to the comment I responded to.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  22. #97
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    770

    Default

    What I said is true. Yes others have done it as well. I responded to a comment on Bush specifically. What other Presidents have or have not done is irrelevent to the comment I responded to.

    It's hardly irrelevant. You selectively targeted GWB for doing something that you now, when pressed, admit that every other President does. You make it sound that GWB doing it today is somehow worse than other Presidents before him, when it is not.

    And like it or not, there are many Democrats who want revenge for the 2000 fiasco.

    Wow, what a great reason to elect someone President- revenge.

  23. #98
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    It's hardly irrelevant. You selectively targeted GWB for doing something that you now, when pressed, admit that every other President does. You make it sound that GWB doing it today is somehow worse than other Presidents before him, when it is not.
    I was responding to a comment on GWB. I did not "target" anyone. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    I was not "pressed" to admit anything. True, he is no worse than anyone else for doing it. George's comment did not refer to anyone else, so my response to it did not refer to anyone else either.

    I do agree with the second part of your post however, revenge is no reason to elect a candidate. I do think however that what happened in 2000 will bring some new voters out, on both sides.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  24. #99
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    First, you have never offered at least the tiniest bit of documentation that the war in Iraq is about oil.
    For fear of dredging up the same thing, it should be obvious to even the most rampant of Bush supporters that the reasons stated for starting this war were not true, or were greatly exaggerated. So, it doesn't take long for one to figure out the reason our government wants control in this part of the world. As for documentation, I'm afraid your side's lack of it is all it takes to enforce my position. Bush has been reduced to saying that we were justified in waging war because Saddam was a very bad person. Cuba is still waiting for us to "liberate" them.

  25. #100
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    For fear of dredging up the same thing, it should be obvious to even the most rampant of Bush supporters that the reasons stated for starting this war were not true, or were greatly exaggerated. So, it doesn't take long for one to figure out the reason our government wants control in this part of the world. As for documentation, I'm afraid your side's lack of it is all it takes to enforce my position. Bush has been reduced to saying that we were justified in waging war because Saddam was a very bad person. Cuba is still waiting for us to "liberate" them.
    So.... A + B = D? The argument continues to make no sense.
    Correct me if I'm wrong as I may be since I live in NJ and did not follow NYC politics too much, but wasn't Rudy hated prior to 9/11? I seem to remember him not being too fondly spoken of before then.
    Hated by who? He won two terms as the Republican mayor of a very liberal city. He probably would be a US Senator right now if he didn't contract cancer.

    Remember, New york City id pretty much of an anomaly in New York State. Most "up-staters" hate the place due to the fact that they percieve it gets an unfair share of services and money. They are also pretty conservative. Hillary would be hosting a freaking talk show if she had not run against a last-minute substitution.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register