Everyone knows my stance on both candidates even though Bush will receive my vote based on the fact I believe he's the slightly better candidate.

Not only does Bush have the upper hand regarding the historical fact America has never abandoned a commander during a war -or- major conflict (correct me if i'm wrong), but he's considered a "man's man" among male voters.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=926&e=1&u=/usnews/whattheguyswant

George W. Bush has it down: the "bring 'em on" macho sensibility, the public swagger, even the quick-draw High Noon cowboy stride. Call it the testosterone factor. It's one reason Bush has maintained a strong appeal to white men throughout his presidency, especially in the South and Southwest. His lead among white men, in fact, has held steady at about 20 points nationally over Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) for months and, because of his projection of strength in the war on terror, may actually be increasing...

...What works for most white men (as opposed, for example, to African-American men, who evaluate the president in starkly different terms) is Bush's reputation as an "average guy," says a senior White House official--the opposite of what California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) famously calls "girlie men." Baker says Bush "has a down-to-earth quality that men find appealing. You know he won't slip off to a quiet place and strum a six-string guitar." And his support among white males has helped Bush open up a 52-to-43 percent lead over Kerry among likely voters, according to that Washington Post /ABC News poll.

C'mon, Bush won because he stole Florida. :rolleyes:

...exactly, BushJr is a fratboy-alcoholic-druggie...everyone's best friend, that gets all the girls and the guys want to be him...until everyone else graduates and he's left in his 7th year as an undergrad studying pottery (metaphore, I know Bush didn't do exactly that). So yeah, that's a good reason he'll get elected...but history will show that it sent our country on a downward spiral...you can all quote me in 5-10 years when we actually DO get over taken as the world's #1 power...

Yeah salty, you are seriously voting for the worst president in U.S. history. That of course is arbitrary, but if you just sit down and look at the numbers, its pretty rediculous. I'd vote for bush if he had that crazy swagger that like, vince vaughn had in "clay pidgeons", but he doesn't, he is a ****ing man-child and the fact that you are voting for him blows my ****ing mind - but whatever, thats your deal. I figure your the kind who will look back on it and refuse to accept that you voted for the man who was responsible for (insert global atrocity here), so i shouldnt expect you to open your eyes now.

Lookout, first thing i did at work when i got here is get into a fight with our lead environmental artist, so i'm on the offensive :D

I've heard Bush say we will never win the win the war on terror- and I agree, because the enemy is everywhere in the world. So, following your logic Salty, he should be the president until he dies?

I believe that it is his 'gung ho' attitude that we need to get rid of. If you've taken a cultural anthropology class, you would have learned of ethnocentrism. Bush can only see one perspective- that may be good to 'get er done'- but will it be doing the right thing in the first place? With all of the animosity Bush has garnered from around the world, how can we re-elect him? How will the world react? We would most definitely be hated even more- with no chance to change that fact for another four years...

Bush comes off as a renegade- definitely not something the modern world needs. Didn't we just invade a country to depose a rogue leader? Take a look at ourselves.

So, following your logic Salty, he should be the president until he dies?

Care to elaborate on this seeing how I've never said the WOT was a battle that could be won?

Not only does Bush have the upper hand regarding the historical fact America has never abandoned a commander during a war -or- major conflict

So, what he's saying is that this is a conflict that has no end in sight, if one at all - so by your logic we should keep him until the war was over, or forever. They are already trying to delay the elections - do you really think that bush wouldnt at least attempt to ammend the 8 year limit? Am i getting too far into tin hat land?

Bush himself conceded that there is no end to the "war on terror", a bogus term in and of itself (taking up arms against a twisted ideology? thats a new one to me!)

Thus, there will be no end to the Republican run in office!! Woohooo

:hears chants of 400 more years:

So, what he's saying is that this is a conflict that has no end in sight, if one at all - so by your logic we should keep him until the war was over, or forever. They are already trying to delay the elections - do you really think that bush wouldnt at least attempt to ammend the 8 year limit? Am i getting too far into tin hat land?

Even though I don't have this logic (search for other relevant Salty posts on how we're fighting a state of mind), this is a lame point to bring up seeing how a President cannot serve more than an 8 year term and WWII generals eventually retired or went till the end of the war with either a win or loss on their record.

Bush will win because the Republican campaign uses fear to scare the American people into voting for him. The american people are so afraid now of getting attacked that all Bush has to do is start digging up 9/11 and people start to get scared. It is all a huge fear campaign - "If Kerry is elected we will get attacked again, but if Bush is elected it won't happen." Give me a friggin break. If the terrorists want to attack us, guess what?? THEY WILL. We have created so many enemies with the unecessary war that they now don't even have to recruit a terrorist anymore they are lining up.

We have to start being smarter about how we fight this so called war on terror. The military effort alone will not ever win this for us. We need to win the hearts and minds of the muslim people instead of alienating them with our horrible foreign policy and our even worse strike first attitude. If I have to hear that asshat dick cheney one more time, talk about how much safer we are with bush I may just puke. It laughable really coming from a guy that used every exemption possible to get out of going to war. I may have voted for the republican ticket if they dumped cheney and went with McCain. That would have been solid.

Bush will win because the Republican campaign uses fear to scare the American people into voting for him. The american people are so afraid now of getting attacked that all Bush has to do is start digging up 9/11 and people start to get scared. It is all a huge fear campaign - "If Kerry is elected we will get attacked again, but if Bush is elected it won't happen." Give me a friggin break. If the terrorists want to attack us, guess what?? THEY WILL. We have created so many enemies with the unecessary war that they now don't even have to recruit a terrorist anymore they are lining up..

Not entirely true...

Although many individuals of the EU and Arab nations are against his ideals, they all agree on the fact that he's a stronger leader than Kerry... that's why people will be voting for him.


We need to win the hearts and minds of the muslim people instead of alienating them with our horrible foreign policy and our even worse strike first attitude.

Remind me again on who struck first?!

This can't possibly be true because we never had this "gung-ho" attitude pre-9/11! Clinton was in office when Osama's plans went underway for the WTC strike in 1996 so what made them so mad at us then?

It has little to do with wining the hearts of the Muslim community when we're fighting religious radicals (the difference is night & day between the two groups). Even though some are upset on how we're handling the situation, they're just as mad at the these radical Muslims for belittling the Muslim faith and understand why Bush has taken vast measures as a strong leader.

Remind me again on who struck first?!

I guess I should have been more specific with that one. I agree on afghanistan fully. That was entirely justified after 9/11 but Iraq?

Remind me again when Iraq struck us first?

Oh I forgot they were a real threat with all their WMD's!

The problem is we bought into the BS that Chalabi's INC was feeding us. He thought we would put him in power once we toppled the Saddam regime. We should have gotten our facts straight first before charging to war and further thinning our troops in other operations, and diverting attention from the real mission which should have been to find Osama and then deal with Iran and North Korea.

George W. Bush has it down: the "bring 'em on" macho sensibility, the public swagger, even the quick-draw High Noon cowboy stride. Call it the testosterone factor. It's one reason Bush has maintained a strong appeal to white men throughout his presidency, especially in the South and Southwest.

That's exactly what I hate about Bush and I'm a white male. I think the president needs to be calm, cool and collected. He should weigh every option knowing that in his hands lie the lives of millions, even billions, of people. I don't want anyone who has a reputation for being a quick-draw. I want somebody who doesn't put off this holier-than-thou swagger Bush has. Why do you think the world hates the US so bad?

...What works for most white men ... Bush's reputation as an "average guy," ...

And call me crazy, but I think the president should be quite above-average.

Clinton was in office when Osama's plans went underway for the WTC strike in 1996 so what made them so mad at us then?


Actually, it was 1993. February 26, 1993.

Clinton was inaugurated January 20, 1993. A little over a month in office and he gets blamed for not stopping the bombing all the time by the media and right-wingers.

Actually, it was 1993. February 26, 1993.

Clinton was inaugurated January 20, 1993. A little over a month in office and he gets blamed for not stopping the attacks all the time.

OOH I can't believe I didn't catch that one! Darnit! :D

Actually, it was 1993. February 26, 1993.

Clinton was inaugurated January 20, 1993. A little over a month in office and he gets blamed for not stopping the bombing all the time by the media and right-wingers.

Thanks for the clarification, njc200.

It has nothing to do with putting the blame on Clinton's shoulders. I'm making the point that there wasn't any "W" "gung-ho" attitude remotely present when Osama planned the WTC attacks in 1993.

Muslim faith, foreign policy and Redneck "Get'er done" attitude aside, we were (and still are today) dealing with radical individuals that exploited their religious faith to make it seem okay to exterminate our way of life.

Remind me again when Iraq struck us first?



Iraq struck Kuwait first which brought the whole thing with America against Iraq, it has been know through polls and such that people are glad that Sadam is gone and, the man committed several crimes and deserves to be routed out. So we liberated a nation, now there is still fighting going on, but atleast the man is out, and people are happier.

Muslim faith, foreign policy and Redneck "Get'er done" attitude aside, we were (and still are today) dealing with radical individuals that exploited their religious faith to make it seem okay to exterminate our way of life.

I totally agree this we are dealing with radical people and other countries that are hating the U.S. for the wrong reasons. Maybe some people should step back and look at America and model after it, no we are not the perfect country, but atleast our freedom and our rights make us have the least problems compared to other countries, The world just needs to shape up and unite instead of all this childs play bickering, ooooo my religion says I can kill sh*t, or I don't like you so I kill you and hate your country sh*t wake up world we are all different so lets get along, too bad it doesn't work that way, so war has to happen sometimes to make the world a better place. sorry for all the babbling but that's what I think.

Muslim faith, foreign policy and Redneck "Get'er done" attitude aside, we were (and still are today) dealing with radical individuals that exploited their religious faith to make it seem okay to exterminate our way of life.

True, but why do you think they feel like that? It has everything to do with our Foreign policy. Which is not a partisan issue at all because it sucks coming from all ends, but Bush has really drug it into the mud.

Our blind support of Israel and our direct neglect of the Palestinians people is an example of why alot of the muslim world distrusts us.

...our direct neglect of the Palestinians people is an example of why alot of the muslim world distrusts us.

Horse ****!!

Neighboring Islamic counties WILL NOT accept any Palestinian as refugees.
Why?
Because these Muslim nations do not want a peaceful solution...they want Isreal gone.

Thanks for the clarification, njc200.

It has nothing to do with putting the blame on Clinton's shoulders. I'm making the point that there wasn't any "W" "gung-ho" attitude remotely present when Osama planned the WTC attacks in 1993.
Bush Sr. had been in office for the previous four years, and Reagan had been in office 8 years prior to that. I believe that their foreign policy had much to do with fostering militant Islamic extremism. These groups take years to plan an attack. Remember how the Bush Sr. administration told Iraq that we would not meddle in it's affairs a few days before Iraq went into Kuwait? We told them we didn't care then declared war on them in a matter of days. That is only one example of US foreign policy which recruits terrorists.
You are free to disagree, but if you do, there is really no point in trying to have a rational discussion.


Muslim faith, foreign policy and Redneck "Get'er done" attitude aside, we were (and still are today) dealing with radical individuals that exploited their religious faith to make it seem okay to exterminate our way of life.

We are dealing with radicals, but we need to take some responsibility for fostering the hatred. Bush is popular because he spreads fear, and people want to believe that the USA is completely without fault. People not taking responsibility for their own actions is a chronic problem in this country, so it's really not too surprising.
...what's that old saying, "pride comes before a fall".

Neighboring Islamic counties WILL NOT accept any Palestinian as refugees.

I'm pretty sure that isn't true, Syria and Lebanon have taken in as many as they can over the years, the problem is they can't take them all.

Why?

Might it be because they think the Palestinians might deserve to stay on land that they've lived on for generations?

Because these Muslim nations do not want a peaceful solution...they want Isreal gone.

I'm sure that is probably true of some PEOPLE within these neighboring muslim nations, but to say it is true of all of these nations is a really bigotted racist thing to say, there is probably a significant majority in all of those countries that would prefer a peaceful solution, but policies aren't dictated by the majority there anymore than they are around here.

Policies get dictated by those in power, and those in power in Israel seem to act as though they think they have a monopoly on truth and justice when in fact their policies show utter contempt for both.

And the US siding with them only makes us more hated in that part of the world.

Bush Sr. had been in office for the previous four years, and Reagan had been in office 8 years prior to that. I believe that their foreign policy had much to do with fostering militant Islamic extremism. These groups take years to plan an attack. Remember how the Bush Sr. administration told Iraq that we would not meddle in it's affairs a few days before Iraq went into Kuwait? We told them we didn't care then declared war on them in a matter of days. That is only one example of US foreign policy which recruits terrorists.
You are free to disagree, but if you do, there is really no point in trying to have a rational discussion.


This is only partially true and I'm willing to admit that. Esracer stumbled over the other major reason as to why they hate us with the following...



Maybe some people should step back and look at America and model after it, no we are not the perfect country, but atleast our freedom and our rights make us have the least problems compared to other countries.

You just hit the nail on the head regarding why terrorist organizations (mainly Muslim radical groups) are threatened by our country. Even though Bush's actions in Kuwait may have been the straw that broke the camel's back regarding American infidels in an Arab country, it's the fact there's other religions that challenge the very existence and power of Allah. It’s the fact that everyone can practice their non-Muslim faiths under the 1st amendment without scrutiny. This very fact makes their blood boil and disrupts the very fabric and ideals they hold sacred. Why do you think they hate Jewish-Israel so much?

Horse ****!!

Neighboring Islamic counties WILL NOT accept any Palestinian as refugees.
Why?
Because these Muslim nations do not want a peaceful solution...they want Isreal gone.

Amen to that!

Every radical Muslim group and country always has!

Wow that is really amazing that you know how the "Muslim mind" operates, you must be some kind of mind reader, what awesome powers you have Salty!

Wow that is really amazing that you know how the "Muslim mind" operates, you must be some kind of mind reader, what awesome powers you have Salty!

I have no idea how the "Muslim mind" operates smart ass. On the other hand, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the mind of -any- radical Muslim (or radical follower of any religious faith for that matter).

Iraq struck Kuwait first which brought the whole thing with America against Iraq

That is funny. Step out of the timewarp dude we already went to war with Iraq about that. We liberated the Kuwati people and all was well.

Yes Saddam was a very bad man and in the long run things will be better for the Iraqi people. BUT, We went into this war for one thing (WMD's) and now that there aren't any they change it to "well he was bad so it is good that he is gone now." You bought their BS hook, line and sinker.

it has been know through polls and such that people are glad that Sadam is gone and, the man committed several crimes and deserves to be routed out. So we liberated a nation, now there is still fighting going on, but atleast the man is out, and people are happier.

Ya they are so glad. Thats why they are fighting as insurgents against our forces. What are you blind? There have now been more american deaths than since the "End of major combat operations"

I'm pretty sure that isn't true, Syria and Lebanon have taken in as many as they can over the years, the problem is they can't take them all.



Might it be because they think the Palestinians might deserve to stay on land that they've lived on for generations?



I'm sure that is probably true of some PEOPLE within these neighboring muslim nations, but to say it is true of all of these nations is a really bigotted racist thing to say, there is probably a significant majority in all of those countries that would prefer a peaceful solution, but policies aren't dictated by the majority there anymore than they are around here.

Policies get dictated by those in power, and those in power in Israel seem to act as though they think they have a monopoly on truth and justice when in fact their policies show utter contempt for both.

And the US siding with them only makes us more hated in that part of the world.

Thanks for arguing that one for me psoper while I was workin..... ;)

Ya they are so glad. Thats why they are fighting as insurgents against our forces.

The only people that are fighting as insurgents are from the same cities once loyal to Saddam (ie Fallujah) that had something to loose with him out of power. Go figure, they're the very same cities that the media continues to report about in order to convince people like yourself of the majority view in Iraq :rolleyes:

Of course the majority of non-insurgents aren't too happy with the American's ongoing occupation of Iraq but I guarantee you they're thankful Saddam's out of power.

What are you blind? There have now been more american deaths than since the "End of major combat operations"

Here we go...

Care to share your vast military statistics with the rest of us?

Here we go...

Care to share your vast military statistics with the rest of us?

You wanted it. End of Major Combat Operations as stated by your President George W. Bush = May 1, 2003 (He did this aboard the USS Abraham if you remember)

And these are taken from this Military Casualty website.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm

Before April 30, 2003
Hostile 109
Non-Hostile 29
Total 138

After May 1, 2003
Hostile 623
Non-Hostile 218
Total 841

Now try to comprehend what the "End of Major Combat Operations" means to you. I know you are ex-military so it shouldn't be hard. Damn Salty I thought you would have known this already since you are indeed Military. It has been over the amount during the "major" stuff for some time now. It is just a shame that we are losing all these good men and women for something that was "justified" by BS and Bad Intelligence.

Nevermind... I didn't grasp what you were refering to regarding the "End of major combat operations" quote.

I thought you were going to start posting Vietnam and WWII statistics in comparision to OIF like they actually compared.

Disregard & carry on :o

Nevermind... I didn't grasp what you were refering to regarding the "End of major combat operations" quote.

I thought you were going to start posting Vietnam and WWII statistics in comparision to OIF like they actually compared.

Disregard & carry on :o

LOL I thought you would know what I was talking about when I clarified.... :D

You just hit the nail on the head regarding why many Americans (mainly fundamental Christian groups) are threatened by Muslims.
...
it's the fact there's other religions that challenge the very existence and power of Christ. It’s the fact that everyone can practice their non-Christian faiths under the 1st amendment without scrutiny. This very fact makes their blood boil and disrupts the very fabric and ideals they hold sacred. Why do you think they hate Arabs/Muslims so much?

I changed a few key phrases in your quote. Food for thought. I was born and raised in the Christian church and I have seen firsthand this intolerant attitude towards Muslims since the 70's. Islam scares the hell out of church goers. They want creationism taught in the class room, they want prayer allowed, but they are repulsed and threatened by the mention of Allah.
The problem is on both sides of the equation, and is confounded by the arrogance on both sides. My religion is better than your religion is what caused the problem and is proliferating the problem, but it is NOT one sided.

I changed a few key phrases in your quote. Food for thought. I was born and raised in the Christian church and I have seen firsthand this intolerant attitude towards Muslims since the 70's. Islam scares the hell out of church goers. They want creationism taught in the class room, they want prayer allowed, but they are repulsed and threatened by the mention of Allah.
The problem is on both sides of the equation, and is confounded by the arrogance on both sides. My religion is better than your religion is what caused the problem and is proliferating the problem, but it is NOT one sided.

You bring up a VERY good point I knew and should have addressed. I was merely addressing the fact that Muslim Radicals are in the spotlight at the present time, not Christians… if we were talking about the Crusades then it would be a slightly different story.

Do I have to quote myself from another thread?
'Organized religion drives people to do terroristic things. All religions that are organized into some power hierarchy, at some point in time, launch a terrorist attack. Currently it's Islam, and some Jewish attacks. But in the middle ages it was the Christians marching across the middle-east raping and pillaging anyone they met.
As soon as you give one person power over others based purely on faith, and then a socio-religious institution is formed based on this, over time corrupt individuals will take advantage of the system and cause f***ed up s***. There are so many examples throughout history it's almost funny that people still defend organized religion; the crussades, Isreal/Palastinien conflict, Al-Queda, Catholic priests with little boys, white supremasists (most of whom assemble under a christian-church-racism-group). Just about every war and all terrorist attacks have been over organized religion.

By the way, religion can be great at the personal level. Only organized religion and the institutions that result are what f*** up the world'

'my god has a bigger dick than your god!'

-george carlin

BTW, I have the audio clip this is from- 3.5mgb, if anyone cares to host