Say something nice about the opponent.

bignick

bignick

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
With all the negativety, say something nice about the candidate you dont like.

I dont like Kerry.

I think some of his health care ideas have merit.

Now dont go into how they wont work, just list one thing you like about the other guy.
 
I don't like Kerry or Bush, so...

Kerry is absolutely right to wonder why we are developing tactical nuclear weapons. That is a big mistake and stopping it should be a high priority. It is hypocritical to be developing new nuclear weapons while telling other countries it is too dangerous for them to have them, even as a deterrent.

Bush's support for transforming the military is right on. Right now we have plenty of troops and reservists, yet the same ones have to go to Iraq and Afghanistan over and over because we don't have the right skill sets. The plan he and Rumsfeld have put in place is a great step in this direction.
 
Bush -

What big ears you have... :)

Really through... I like Bush's troop movement, but I don't think it's enough, and I don't think he should from South Korea, I think we should put more in South Korea.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Kerry has two functioning lungs and kidneys and should donate both soon.

That's all I have.[/quote]

Try a little harder. You missed the point of this thread.
 
Kerry has two functioning lungs and kidneys and should donate both soon.

That's all I have.
Click to expand...

PAD has an unfunctional brain. and im quite sure he has herpes.......he should donate his unfunctional brain to a medical school so they can figure out where he was dropped on his head......

That's all I have.
 
Here's the thing - the thing I find admirable about Bush is also the thing I find to be the most dangerous.

I think he is earnest in his belief that he is trying to the right thing for America.

seppo
 
The stem cell issue was handled increadibly well by Pres. Bush. It may be one of the wisest and balanced decitsions in his administration. I find it disappointing that his democratic opponents are mischaracterizing the ban against him to pander to their base.

I don't like Bush's social security plan (actually I think it's horrible and we're the generation that gets screwed) but at least he HAS a plan. The Democrats don't have crap. That was my biggest disappointment from the debates. Bush barely talked about his and Kerry said nada.

Bush was right and proper to go into Afganistan.

I don't know enough about the presidents education plan because it isn;t somthing that concerns me. I'm somewhat ambiiivaklent. It could be great, it could be horrendous. I veer towards the latter but frankly it won't be able to be adequetly judged for another seven years or so.

He's spending like a fiend. I'm all for fiscal responsibility. So I feel his tax cut was the height of irresponsibiliy and did more damage than good. But following simple Keansian economic principles all this goverment spending has fostered job growth better than the tax cut.

Reganaomics, supply side spending is ideology, it's innane. And in a sense, Bush is helping to disprove it. Keans theorized and eighty years of practice has shown the best way to boost the economy and create jobs is through government spending because it can be directed properly. The Democrats talk about job loss. But they only include the private sector. When you include new jobs created by government spending, job loss is net even, because the government has taken up the slack. It's done exactly as Keans theory predicts and practice has proven.

Ironically, this goes against the core of Bush's beliefs. I think this is an unintended consequence to stand up to congress. But it actually IS the right thing to do. And I have to give him credit for that even if I think it was accidential.

I don't agree with everything of his prescription drug plan but it's a start. The problem is that it's not bipartisan enough. But for many senioers it's beter than nothing.

And finally, he's pretty much accomplished all the legislative agenda he's promised he would. I disagree with some of it. Some of it I support. Further, in doing so I think he's helped foster the partisan venom invading the congress today. The republicans in Congress have run roughshod over the Democrats in the past few years. Much worse than the Democrats have. Nearly three times worse than when they controlled congress according to a report I read a few weeks ago.

But you gotta admit, it got his legislation passed.

There's more too, but that is the big stuff.
 
The stem cell issue was handled increadibly well by Pres. Bush. It may be one of the wisest and balanced decitsions in his administration. I find it disappointing that his democratic opponents are mischaracterizing the ban against him to pander to their base.
Click to expand...
Are you crazy? All it was is a massive cop out. He wanted to make his base happy (which seems to think embryonic stem cells require eating babies) and not completely alienate non-hardcore right wingers. He wants to play both sides, something he accuses Kerry of.

Now, for something nice. I think he genuinely loves America and wants to do what he thinks is right for the country.
 
Bush is incredibly loyal to his people. No matter how bad the news has gotten during his administration, he's never forced or asked anyone to resign. He's stuck with them right through it all.


And kudos to you for the reach-out, BigNick. This is a big, mean election season, but we shouldn't forget that at the end of the day we are all Americans together.
 
I think bush did a great job after the events of 911, I don't know about his action in the first minutes in FL, but he gave a great speech after all that happend. I still remember that linewest something like "we will bring the terrorists to justice or we bring justice to the terrorists.

Great line.
 
I'll name two for Bush.

His inital invasion of Afganistan.

Being able to quit doing drugs and alcohol after abusing it for so long, and not having a relapse while being President.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
The stem cell issue was handled increadibly well by Pres. Bush. It may be one of the wisest and balanced decitsions in his administration. I find it disappointing that his democratic opponents are mischaracterizing the ban against him to pander to their base.
Click to expand...
Are you crazy? All it was is a massive cop out. He wanted to make his base happy (which seems to think embryonic stem cells require eating babies) and not completely alienate non-hardcore right wingers. He wants to play both sides, something he accuses Kerry of.

Now, for something nice. I think he genuinely loves America and wants to do what he thinks is right for the country.[/quote]

I disagree on the stem cell stuff. Bush's reasoning, that the lines of stem cells he's allowed experimentation on were already there when he got into office, is sound. He wants to prevent any more.

And I agree that both Bush and Kerry do love their country and want to do what will make it better, although that doesn't preclude them from other, shadier practices on the side in the dirty, filthy game of politics.
 
While I am not a member of either party, I am supporting Kerry in 04, so my comments will be about Bush.

I think that Bush is much more intelligent than he is traditionally given credit. When in a scripted environment, he is a very good speaker that conveys his feelings and thoughts succinctly and passionately.

I disagree with him most of the time, but can understand why he energizes people that do agree with him.
 
I wonder why people worried that JFK would have a hotline to the Vatican installed in the Oval office, yet noone cares that Kerry is a Catholic?
 
[quote name='JSweeney']I wonder why people worried that JFK would have a hotline to the Vatican installed in the Oval office, yet noone cares that Kerry is a Catholic?[/quote]

I'm more worried about Bush'd hotline to Jerry Falwell and the like.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']I wonder why people worried that JFK would have a hotline to the Vatican installed in the Oval office, yet noone cares that Kerry is a Catholic?[/quote]


Because Kerry can't be any more Christian Church loving than Bush.

Bush is basicly kissing the Pope's ass. He probaly would do it if it wasn't say "gay".
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
The stem cell issue was handled increadibly well by Pres. Bush. It may be one of the wisest and balanced decitsions in his administration. I find it disappointing that his democratic opponents are mischaracterizing the ban against him to pander to their base.
Click to expand...
Are you crazy? All it was is a massive cop out. He wanted to make his base happy (which seems to think embryonic stem cells require eating babies) and not completely alienate non-hardcore right wingers. He wants to play both sides, something he accuses Kerry of.

Now, for something nice. I think he genuinely loves America and wants to do what he thinks is right for the country.[/quote]

Actually, I things that characterization is unfair.

First, you have to recognize that fifty percent of the country does not support stem cell research, aligns it with abortion, which they believe is murder. Personally, I suport the right to choose and support stem cell research. It's been proven it can cure Parkinsons and shows great promise against further diseases. But I am respectful of the other perspective that abortion is murder. I can understand the moral difficulty in the position.

What the President did is state that Federal Funding will not support new Research in Stem Cells. Hard core democrats paint that as if he's banned stem cell research. Not True There are many private organizations in the united states that perform stem cell research and do not rely on federal funding.

The argument against the presidents position is that it really hurts academia. That most Universities and Medical Schools where research is performed rely on federal funding. They won't perform stem cell research because they won't put their federal funding at risk. The argument is that since most hard core research comes from acedemia it will slow research and make our univerities less competative with the world in this one field.

But the President did leave an out for Universities and academia. Such institutions can continue research on exisiting Stem Cell supplies. While those supplies can run out, and it does impose some special limitations, it still allows academics to do some research. For thos who choose to excel in such research, they can graduate from universities and pursue more estoic and complex stem cell research at private institutions.

Further, those who rally against the Presidents decision have a perfectly feasable option to donate, tax deductible I might add, to private institutions that perform stem cell research in the United States like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and others.

You have to recognize that if half the nation is pro-life, you have to respect that perspective, while still giving an avenue for those that are pro-choice and support stem-cell research. The president basically did that. Guaranteeing that tax dollars won't support a form of research that half the nation finds morally objectionable and leaving those who support stem cell research a plethora of options in its support.

If I recall, at the time he made his decision, generally those who looked at the decision objectively in the news thought it was a wise and fair decision balancing both sides of the pro-choice, pro-life conflict.

I personally think it's been one of his most considerate decisions while in office.
 
I think David meant "can't be..." and personally I think the biggest reason is the fact that he'd be second. When Kennedy was running there had never been a Catholic president so there was this fear that the Vatican would run our country. Now that people saw first hand the fact that it never happened like they said it once could, it has put many of those old fears to rest or at least largely lessened them.
 
Yeah I meant "can't", I always forget the end part. And I put "like" instead of "think" so if you see that just switch them around. :)
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I think David meant "can't be..." and personally I think the biggest reason is the fact that he'd be second. When Kennedy was running there had never been a Catholic president so there was this fear that the Vatican would run our country. Now that people saw first hand the fact that it never happened like they said it once could, it has put many of those old fears to rest or at least largely lessened them.[/quote]

That's exactly right, Duo. I just wanted to see how people would react to that, and Kerry's explict mention of being Catholic in the debate made it a good time to bring it up.
 
You have to recognize that if half the nation is pro-life, you have to respect that perspective, while still giving an avenue for those that are pro-choice and support stem-cell research. The president basically did that. Guaranteeing that tax dollars won't support a form of research that half the nation finds morally objectionable and leaving those who support stem cell research a plethora of options in its support.
Click to expand...
I certainly respect anyones opinion on the matter, however, I don't agree that half the country is pro life, they're a vocal minority. Some of what Bush did makes it very difficult for Universities to conduct stem cell research, since not only can it not be federally funded, you can't use any materials or equipment that were bought previously with federal funds.
Also, I find his position to be completely hypocritical, since he does not oppose in vitro fertilization. If you're opposed to one for moral reasons, you should be opposed to both, since both involve destroying embryos.
I feel very strongly about supporting this research, because this could be the greatest medical breakthrough of all time. Bigger than antibiotics. This policy has slowed research to a crawl, when we could be saving lives.
 
Fetal stem cells can be retrieved from frozen embryos at fertility clinics, embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway. It doesn't have to have anything to do with abortion but the anti-abortion crowd painted it that way and Bush pandered to them with his decision.
 
Look, I don't want to make this the "stem cell" thread. But I do want to point out two things.

The first is that I had already considered the research issue in my original post and while I agree it does cause special difficulties for educational institutions instem cell research that there are still plent of opportunities to promote development of stem cell techniques in this country. I stand by my argument and think it is fair. There is still Stem Cell research being performed at universities and private institutions.

And second, I find it very interesting that in the first section of dafoomie's post that he starts by pointing out that he respects other side of the debate. And then belittles that other side by calling it hypocritical. There are several moral and ethical positions that can support in-vitiro fertilization yet oppose stem cell research.
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='JSweeney']I wonder why people worried that JFK would have a hotline to the Vatican installed in the Oval office, yet noone cares that Kerry is a Catholic?[/quote]


Because Kerry can't be any more Christian Church loving than Bush.

Bush is basicly kissing the Pope's ass. He probaly would do it if it wasn't say "gay".[/quote]

Also Kerry is hardly a devout Catholic. Look at his opinions on abortion and homosexuality, for example.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
You have to recognize that if half the nation is pro-life, you have to respect that perspective, while still giving an avenue for those that are pro-choice and support stem-cell research. The president basically did that. Guaranteeing that tax dollars won't support a form of research that half the nation finds morally objectionable and leaving those who support stem cell research a plethora of options in its support.
Click to expand...
I certainly respect anyones opinion on the matter, however, I don't agree that half the country is pro life, they're a vocal minority.[/quote]

You must not believe the polls.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
 
Yeah while exactly half would be a slight exaggertion I think it usually hovers around 38-40% in favor of pro-life stance and I do know there's actually a majority against partial birth abortion.
 
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 21-22, 2004. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?"

Pro-choice 44%
Pro-life 47%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top