George W. Bush's qualifications to be President

crashfrog, I agree with your sentiments except for the tone of this question:

quote:

---

How does Bush expect to run a campaign based just on "anybody but Kerry"?

---

I think it's quite the other way round. Kerry is riding a wave of "anybody but Bush". Kerry needs to go negative and he needs to do it last year. The Bush camp knows what it's doing and it's doing it very well. It's hard to dress up s*it to make it look pretty and smell nice, but they're doing it right before our eyes.Kerry's campaign looks almost bush league (did I say that?) by comparison. It's sad to say but negative campaigning works. Kerry needs to learn that fact right away.

Just to let you know, Pat Buchanan has a new book out and he thoroughly criticizes Bush, including a comment that Bush (by his actions) is no longer a conservative.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Pst... Psssssssst... That included keeping religion out of the government. You have a whole post load of quotes to respond to, including from TJ on that subject.Am I going to see a response, or shall I take you silence to mean victory.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Whatever, do you not mind paying more of the tax burden while wealthy people pay less of the tax burden?MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

Holmes, I'm a Pat Buchanan fan too, the problem, is the republican party chose Dole over Pat, cause of Pats radical approach to close our borders to protect our industries from leaving america, and the American people saying that Pat was a radical for daring to try to keep our industries within our country, when you all voted for Clinton you simply proved Pat Buchanan prophetic, and you got exactly what you voted for(so stop whining), however, GWB is not a globalist, but quite patriotic, while Mr. Kerry is a globalists, and they are quieting the media about his reneging to release his military records. What you now are saying is that you want to tax the industries that stayed behind, to bankrupt them so no decent jobs remain in our country, cause they will simply go bankrupt and relocate across the border, which is Kerry's plan, but not Georges plan, etc...P.S. You do realize the Vets requested Kerry to release his complete naval military and medical records in May of this year, he however still refuses to do so(what is Kerry hiding), do you really believe the media's silence on this all (is not showing its bias), it should be front page material, that Kerry refuses to release his complete naval military and medical records, however the fact remains he refuses to deal with the Vets request, to be releasing his complete military records, it was Kerry who said he was a hero, now he needs to prove it so, he refuses, the question is WHY? but well you know the answer, why he is not sueing the Vets for libel, etc...

quote:

---

...Pats radical approach to close our borders to protect our industries from leaving america....

---

You mean like the Soviet Union did?

TJ never said religious people could not be involved in civil government, just that they couldn't make laws respecting their particular denomination, you forget the religious persecution between denominations is why they fled to America, TJ said he swore on the altar of God, to protect religion from religion, its not a contradiction, etc...P.S. What is your feeling in respect to George Washingtons Quoting that Congress would protect the religion of Jesus Christ, its quite obvious the founding fathers were quite religious, about the freedoms, that they had released themselves from Britian, so they set up the Constitution to be the People, and not the King, however, the judges are saying its the will of the judges and not the will of the people, like in california where the people voted against gay marriages, and several judges voted for, in spite of the will of the people, etc...This is the basis of voting Republican and not Democrat is that its all about the freedoms of the peoples and not the will of the judges, etc...If you believe that George Washington *SAID* that Congress would protect *the religion of Jesus Christ*, then you have your answer that elected officials are to protect the Church, etc...

Well, in many cases, this is true. Noam Chomsky is one of the world's finest linguists, but his political ideas are unworthy of a sophomore level course in political science in sophistication. On the other end of the spectrum, William Shockley was a great solid state physicist, but his racist ideas, in addition to being repugnant, were equally irrational and sophomoric.Excellence in a narrow field of academic study is evidence of...excellence in a narrow field of academic study.Most human beings have a particular brand of irrationality they nurse. For some, it's fundamentalist religion, For others, fundamentalist atheism. For others, their political ideas. For others, a hobby.Academics aren't immune. Peer review is only switched on in the journals and conferences.

Do you support industries being allowed to flee america, and reset up shop in China, its not about communism but globalisms, etc...P.S. The people that voted for Bill Clinton, simply got what they voted for, Clinton kept his promise to not close the borders, and you all didn't want to be accused of being a radical to close our borders to industries fleeing, so if you voted for Bill, you have no excuse, and shouldn't whine about the jobs that you all were responsible to the sending overseas, I realize you all now agree it was a poor policy(that Pat Buchanan was prophetic), but you can be repentant and vote for George, but don't whine, you didn't want factories for our children but was for the opening of our borders (free trade) and globalist agenda, and thats why you all voted for Clinton, etc...This message has been edited by whatever, 09-01-2004 12:25 PM

Well then you haven't been watching or reading about the RNC, I guess. Or seen Bush's webpage.Bush's webpage mentions Kerry more than Kerry's webpage mentions Kerry. Bush doesn't appear on Kerry's webpage.It's not hard to see who's running on their own strengths as a candidate and who's running on a platform of "the other guy is a waffling Massachusets liberal."I agree that many people support Kerry because he's Bush's opponent, and that's a valid reason to vote. But that's not the platform Kerry is running on.

perhaps that he had a vasectomy or something else totally unrelated to his leadership abilities but which would become the subject of another round of attack ads by the totally unscrupulous and venal neocon machinery?the pertinent records are available. Meanwhile bush as some missing ...where was he ... ?If you are truly a Pat Buchanan fan and he says DON'T VOTE FOR BUSH then why would you?heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Strike one, how do you know who I voted for? Bush has made Clinton look like an absolute gem of a president, but I disliked many of Clinton's policies and I did not even vote for Gore in 2000. Strike two, I own a business and DO NOT want taxes to bankrupt my or any other business. I am a fiscal conservative, although I do believe there should be a certain amount of social programs to create a net for those who go under, I am for as low of taxes as possible, and wisdom in spending.Can't figure out where you think the money is going to come from to pay of the massive deficit Bush has plunged us into... personal taxes? business taxes? what? maybe a bake sale?Remember Bush spent money needlessly... our money... and it will come out of OUR pockets at some point. Perhaps you have missed the conservative republicans which have come out against Bush's policies... like Pat Buchanan? Strike three and you're oughta there! I have no idea why he hasn't released his record. If his NOT doing so is an indicator of something wrong, what does that make Bush's refusal to do the same thing?Oh yes, and why are you pressing this issue when Bush himself has already praised Kerry's activities, admitting they were more heroic than his own? and when regardless of any other records Kerry certainly earned the silver star?A republican has already said that at the very least, the silver star had to be valid. That puts Kerry above Bush.But my this was a long way from what I brought up.How about swinging at an actual pitch...Pat Buchanan has criticized Bush as no longer being a conservative. Since you like Buchanan, what do you think of this criticism?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No I didn't. I just didn't write an entire history. Would it help if I did?Perhaps then you would remember that they were deists and while TJ may very well have sworn many things to God, including protecting religion from religion, the mechanism he used for this was preventing religion the might of the state. I feel curious and will look up what he was talking about. If you mean did it make me feel like he was saying Congress would "enforce" the religion, I would say NO. Yes they were religious. Most of them were deists. They were quite interested in freedom and not only put the power in the people, but excluded some powers from the people. That was called the Bill of Rights. The judges put the will of the legislature in contextual boundaries created by the Constitution. In this case if the judges felt that the legislature was stepping across the bounds of law then they can negate the law.You don't seriously have a problem with that do you? Or should the legislature be able to pass any law it wills?Did they teach you about the nature of checks and balances in school? Please draw me a map on this one:1) Freedom of people is NOT them being able to do something, but a majority telling a minority what NOT to do?2) Judges should NOT protect the rights of ALL the people as laid out in the Bill of Rights, in order to protect only the will of the majority in Congress? They certainly do protect the Church, as well as everyone else's religious institutions. How can anyone attack the Church if no one can pass religious laws?Maybe you missed the quote questioning how some morons can't figure out that the very laws which could be used to protect your religion IN SPECIFIC, could be used to stamp your religion out of existence in the future.I can't figure out how you don't get it either.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Do you support industries being allowed to flee america, and reset up shop in China....

---

But George W. Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress support industries leaving America and setting up in China. Why don't you support your President?

crashfrog says:

quote:

---

Well then you haven't been watching or reading about the RNC, I guess. Or seen Bush's webpage.

---

I've been watching. My point was that Bush IS running a negative campaign. That's what works. Kerry needs to do the same thing if he really wants to win. There's an over-abundance of material for Kerry to use if he'd just use it.Kerry is too reluctant to attack Bush and he's too slow to respond when he himself is attacked. The SBVFT is a perfect example. It took weeks for him to respond to those charges and when he finally did respond he seemed to do so from weakness. I mentioned in another thread that after my old computer crashed I started getting most of my news from NWI and MSNBC. Those seldom-watched networks have done a fair job of scrutinizing the SBVFT ads and pointing out the discrepancies and distortions not only with the actual Naval records but even between the SBVs themselves. Kerry should be on the offensive regarding the SBVs and shouldn't leave it to the media to respond to those ads. Beyond that, he should be pointing out what's wrong with Bush and he should do so with gusto and enthusiasm. If he doesn't, he stands NO chance of being elected the next president.