 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
95 bxl
Seaman
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 179
|
 Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 7:34 pm Post subject: To Kerry supporters: |
 |
|
What revelation about Kerry would get you to stop supporting him?
Allegedly, you all know why you DO support him... you should know what would cause you to stop.
I, for one, would like to hear it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
diogenes
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: To Kerry supporters: |
|
|
| 95 bxl wrote: | What revelation about Kerry would get you to stop supporting him?
Allegedly, you all know why you DO support him... you should know what would cause you to stop.
I, for one, would like to hear it. |
Personally, his main appeal to me is that he's not George Bush.
Bush has a number of attributes that make him a very bad risk as president. First, he's stern, resolute, and stubborn, which might considered be a good thing. Second, he doesn't seem to listen well. In real life, I'm a scientist of sorts, and there's a lot of information to the effect that he doesn't listen to scientists on scientific issues:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/19/scientists.bush.ap/
He doesn't listen to his own cabinet on domestic issues (think Paul O Neil)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
And now, it appears, he doesn't listen to the military on military issues.
This is a really dangerous combination. The last thing you want is an effective leader that leads in the wrong direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hist/student
Lieutenant
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 243
|
| Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
retraction
Last edited by hist/student on Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 1603
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 12:18 am Post subject: Re: To Kerry supporters: |
|
|
| diogenes wrote: | ...he doesn't seem to listen well. In real life, I'm a scientist of sorts, and there's a lot of information to the effect that he doesn't listen to scientists on scientific issues:
snip
He doesn't listen to his own cabinet on domestic issues (think Paul O Neil)
snip
And now, it appears, he doesn't listen to the military on military issues.
This is a really dangerous combination. The last thing you want is an effective leader that leads in the wrong direction. |
Listening and following are not the same thing. In my business experience, an effective meeting of subordinates with their boss means that they get to contribute any and all concerns, ideas and suggestions. Then the boss decides.
If the boss always decides what the majority of the subordinates recommends, then he's not a leader; he's a follower.
Therefore, it seems to me that an "effective leader" will not always (or even necessarily often) agree with his subordinates.
You've given no proof that I could see that George Bush has ignored all of his advisors - but I may have missed it. Can you point to such a case? At that point, I would be much more inclined to agree with your conclusion.
Last edited by Scott on Mon May 31, 2004 12:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diogenes
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hist/student wrote: | Diogenes those are two meaningless links. The first one Cnn has the Heinz foundation as a major source for the story.
|
Huh? the Heinz foundation? The letter from scientists definitely happened: you can read about it on UCS's site, if you don't trust CNN.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381
Or if you'd like a soundbite: “Science, to quote President Bush's father, the former president, relies on freedom of inquiry and objectivity,” said Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon and Ford, who joined the scientists in calling for action. “But this administration has obstructed that freedom and distorted that objectivity in ways that were unheard of in any previous administration.”
I've also privately heard about political string-pulling in NIH, and budgetary uncertainty, that are at least outside my colleague's experience, if not unprecedented. But you'd have to trust me, which doesn't seem likely from what I've read on this bb: as far as I know nothing's hit the fan on that.
As for O'Neill, what bothers me is the pattern, not the instance. O'Neill said Bush was "disengaged" and didn't listen - same thing that UCS says about science, same thing that Clark said about terrorism, same thing Zinni says about military strategy. The arrows all seem point in one direction.
So to take this the other direction - can you give me a credible reason to vote *for* Bush, as opposed to *against* Kerry? Or should we both write in Keith Nolan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 1603
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Diogenes:
You linked to the Union of Concerned Scientists, which was formed at MIT. Do you honestly believe, after looking at their website, that they are a strictly scientific advisory organization?
They appear, from my reading, to be more the Green Party's Advisory Committee.
This is crucial to your argument; if the UCSUSA were to approach the President as an preserviationist environmental organization, then I would expect that they would receive little attention.
Am I missing something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hist/student
Lieutenant
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 243
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
retraction
Last edited by hist/student on Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| diogenes wrote: |
Or if you'd like a soundbite: “Science, to quote President Bush's father, the former president, relies on freedom of inquiry and objectivity,” said Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon and Ford, who joined the scientists in calling for action. “But this administration has obstructed that freedom and distorted that objectivity in ways that were unheard of in any previous administration.” |
Just curious... did Russell Train provide any empirical evidence to support his assertion? His statement is an opinion or, at best, a theory that requires proof. As a former physics major (before I decided being a scientist was not the exciting career path I had hoped it would be  ), I recall enough of that training 30 years ago (damn I'm old) to know that a good scientist does not present theories as fact.
| diogenes wrote: | | As for O'Neill, what bothers me is the pattern, not the instance. O'Neill said Bush was "disengaged" and didn't listen - same thing that UCS says about science, same thing that Clark said about terrorism, same thing Zinni says about military strategy. The arrows all seem point in one direction. |
Don't know what Zinni said.. guess I'll need to look that up. Clark has proven to be a publicity seeking show-boater, changing his story and admitting to lies, taking credit for preventing the Y2K terrorist aatack when he played no role that anyone besides himself can point to, and playing to the audience by "apologizing" in one breath while explaining why it wasn't his fault with the next. If it wasn't his fault.. why apologize? Maybe he could apologize for the Cole while he's at it, along with several other attacks that occurred on his watch through multiple administrations. This is the same guy who asserts that Condi Rice never heard of Al Queada when they first met. The press tried to make him into a hero, but I believe he's a bitter, lying has-been.
With O'Neill, I don't know what to believe. He's already claimed that he was misquoted in his own book. Bottom line: A President needs to have more than one view presented to him by his advisors and the folks who's advise he doesn't take need to accept that and realize we didn't elect them.
| diogenes wrote: | | So to take this the other direction - can you give me a credible reason to vote *for* Bush, as opposed to *against* Kerry? Or should we both write in Keith Nolan? |
Probably depends on what you believe to be the "right thing to do" in several situations. If you believe the UN should be consulted before determining a course of action, either candidate will suffice. If you further believe that the UN not approving of a course of action is enough for us to alter our approach to dealing with our enemies (or perceived enemies if you prefer), then go with Kerry. If you prefer that our foreign policy be dictated by what is in the best interest for the US, then go with Bush.
If you believe that income redistribution is necessary to be fair to the folks who make less money, even to the point of giving a tax "refund" to folks that don't pay taxes, go with Kerry. If you believe that 50% of the population paying more than 90% of the taxes is enough and an increase is not necessary, go with Bush.
If you believe that diversity is something that needs to be legislated but need not apply to the federal government, go with Kerry. If you believe that diversity should be attained based upon a fair assessment of talent, including at the Cabinet level, go with Bush... action over rhetoric.
If you believe that terrorism should be fought through law enforcement alone, go with Kerry. If you believe "preemptive" strikes at known supporters of terrorism are acceptable if they help reduce potential threats, go with Bush. (By the way, there is precedent for this in US history. A blockade is, by international law, an act of war. When we blockaded Cuba for having nuclear weapons even though they never used them or even threatened to use them, that was a preemptive strike.)
You've probably decided what values are important to you already, all you need to do is look past the rhetoric and see whcih candidate matches up with your values... but look past what they say. Past actions are more likely to be an indicator of future actions than anything any politician say while trying to get your vote.
At one point, I actually thought that I might vote for Kerry, then I did some research and realized that he wasn't who he said he was... then I started to try to share what I believe I learned with others because I am very worried that we will be in bad shape if he gets elected. But, heck, I can be wrong... but at least I tried to examine the data and draw a conclusion instead of approaching this from a position of hate and working my way down from there.
Sorry for the long replay to a question you didn't actually ask me 
Keith
PS: I know you weren't looking for reasons to not vote for Kerry, but you might want to consider what he's accomplished as a senator... as far as I could find out, not much. In fact, since May 2003, he's actually missed about 85% of the votes.
http://thinkinboutstuff.netfirms.com/senate_record.htm
And his record of changing his positions on issues within 24 hours to depending on the audience leads might indicate he thinks we won't notice or he figures even if we do he can count on enough people hating Bush to sneak in as president. Heck, he even got the nomination by default when Dean self-destructed.
His historical inability to make timely decisions with limited data is frightening... the latest was the simple decision of following the law and or trying to find away around the law while minimizng the political fall-out of not accepting the nomination at the convention. This should have been a very easy decision, but he agonized over it until he was pushed to make a decision by bad press.
Sorry... I'll stop |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| diogenes wrote: |
As for O'Neill, what bothers me is the pattern, not the instance. O'Neill said Bush was "disengaged" and didn't listen - same thing that UCS says about science, same thing that Clark said about terrorism, same thing Zinni says about military strategy. The arrows all seem point in one direction. |
You do realize that Zinni is retired? I'd be much more concerned if President Bush wasn't listening to General Schoomaker, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikest
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: | | diogenes wrote: |
As for O'Neill, what bothers me is the pattern, not the instance. O'Neill said Bush was "disengaged" and didn't listen - same thing that UCS says about science, same thing that Clark said about terrorism, same thing Zinni says about military strategy. The arrows all seem point in one direction. |
You do realize that Zinni is retired? I'd be much more concerned if President Bush wasn't listening to General Schoomaker, but that doesn't seem to be the case. |
There's no way to be sure of that since active Generals very rarely have anthing bad to say about their CIC. I think it's telling that an unprecidented number of Govt officials have left the admin and openly criticized it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
95 bxl
Seaman
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| All of this is well and good, but none of it answers the question: What would Kerry have to do to LOSE your support? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
95 bxl
Seaman
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikest wrote: |
There's no way to be sure of that since active Generals very rarely have anthing bad to say about their CIC. I think it's telling that an unprecidented number of Govt officials have left the admin and openly criticized it. |
Feel free to prove your assertion here... if you can.
When it comes to "unprecidented," that must mean you absolutely hate Clinton, right? Since an "unprecidented" number of "Govt officials" were indicted and convicted on HIS watch... right? Or isn't that "telling" enough for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikest wrote: | | Greenhat wrote: | | diogenes wrote: |
As for O'Neill, what bothers me is the pattern, not the instance. O'Neill said Bush was "disengaged" and didn't listen - same thing that UCS says about science, same thing that Clark said about terrorism, same thing Zinni says about military strategy. The arrows all seem point in one direction. |
You do realize that Zinni is retired? I'd be much more concerned if President Bush wasn't listening to General Schoomaker, but that doesn't seem to be the case. |
There's no way to be sure of that since active Generals very rarely have anthing bad to say about their CIC. I think it's telling that an unprecidented number of Govt officials have left the admin and openly criticized it. |
Schoomaker was retired. He had ample opportunity to say something if he felt it was necessary. And General Schoomaker is not exactly the type who keeps his mouth shut when he feels there is something to say.
Unlike General Zinni, General Clark, and a number of conventional Generals who have criticized the administration, General Schoomaker actually has experience fighting terrorism (take a look at what patch he wears on his right shoulder, you won't see that one often), and understands how to use unconventional assets.
Oh, unprecedented? Do some research.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marine4life
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 591
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
C'mon you guy's you are arguing with MORONS here. They support Kerry and have nothing valuable to say. They won't change their position because they have none. Don't fan their flame, just ignore them. They aren't Vets and don't have a clue, they don't even know the nomenclature of the freedoms that they abuse. Semper Fi
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikest
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marine4life wrote: | | C'mon you guy's you are arguing with MORONS here. They support Kerry and have nothing valuable to say. They won't change their position because they have none. Don't fan their flame, just ignore them. They aren't Vets and don't have a clue, they don't even know the nomenclature of the freedoms that they abuse. Semper Fi |
This coming from someone who said they don't believe in POW's. Something like "killing them all and let allah sort them out." Definately someone who's opinion I couldn't care less about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
