Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

high_jinx · 10-18-2004, 04:04 PM

thanks for the article art. i appreciate the attempt at answering my query. i found it amazing that yours was the only decent and serious response.unfortunately after reading it, i can't help but think that it's exactly what i didn't want to hear about... half of it is about the "keeping us safe" national security issue. the other half attacks kerry. here are points that bother me about it...

1) it's my opinion that ANY- body in office would make national security and fighting/suppressing terrorism a top priority. quite simply it's a no-brainer obvious issue.

2) no matter how much money we spend or how many terrorist rings we squash, there ARE going to be more terrorist attacks. we're only a suitcase getting through our borders away from something really nasty happening to an entire city. and with all the illegal things being sneaked into our country each year from drugs to weapons to anything you want to name, it's obvious our border security can't prevent that. so, while anti terrorism is and should be a top priority, it's possible to overdo it and have the entire country suffer as a result. i see this happening with the deficit we've racked up, the jobs we've lost, and the health care so many of us (including me) don't have anymore.

3) when speaking of bush and his record, i can't help but think that his invasion of iraq has actually hurt our ability to go after terrorists. it's a siev that all of our resources are leaking into while other countries are much more likely to pose a threat.

that article says that bush has kept us focused for 3 years on our national security, and thats the big reason he should be re-elected. i'm not so sure about that. i think the president is an office that has more than one dimension to it. thats why i started this thread. i was looking for anything i hadn't heard about bush that showed him to be competent at leading this country. it doesn't seem like bush is even thinking about so many things that are so important to our country's future. if national security is all he knows, then he should be our national security advisor, not our president.

even though i don't particularly like either candidate, at least kerry is looking inward as well as outward. and i think it's just plain ridiculous to attack someone for changing their mind about something after they see it's warped or isn't working. so to me, all that "waffle" talk about kerry does more to discredit the accusers than the accused. That and the "liberal" name calling going on seem like simple mantras to mindlessly throw around while steering clear about considering whats really important to us remaining a strong and healthy nation.

so up to this point i can only conclude that voting for bush is stepping into the trap of fear thats' been set for you. and if we have 4 more years of focusing on what bush wants us to focus on, we'll be blind to the continued collapse of our nations core of integrity.

10-18-2004, 04:04 PM	#38 (permalink)
high_jinx Psycho Location: venice beach, ca	thanks for the article art. i appreciate the attempt at answering my query. i found it amazing that yours was the only decent and serious response.unfortunately after reading it, i can't help but think that it's exactly what i didn't want to hear about... half of it is about the "keeping us safe" national security issue. the other half attacks kerry. here are points that bother me about it... 1) it's my opinion that ANY- body in office would make national security and fighting/suppressing terrorism a top priority. quite simply it's a no-brainer obvious issue. 2) no matter how much money we spend or how many terrorist rings we squash, there ARE going to be more terrorist attacks. we're only a suitcase getting through our borders away from something really nasty happening to an entire city. and with all the illegal things being sneaked into our country each year from drugs to weapons to anything you want to name, it's obvious our border security can't prevent that. so, while anti terrorism is and should be a top priority, it's possible to overdo it and have the entire country suffer as a result. i see this happening with the deficit we've racked up, the jobs we've lost, and the health care so many of us (including me) don't have anymore. 3) when speaking of bush and his record, i can't help but think that his invasion of iraq has actually hurt our ability to go after terrorists. it's a siev that all of our resources are leaking into while other countries are much more likely to pose a threat. that article says that bush has kept us focused for 3 years on our national security, and thats the big reason he should be re-elected. i'm not so sure about that. i think the president is an office that has more than one dimension to it. thats why i started this thread. i was looking for anything i hadn't heard about bush that showed him to be competent at leading this country. it doesn't seem like bush is even thinking about so many things that are so important to our country's future. if national security is all he knows, then he should be our national security advisor, not our president. even though i don't particularly like either candidate, at least kerry is looking inward as well as outward. and i think it's just plain ridiculous to attack someone for changing their mind about something after they see it's warped or isn't working. so to me, all that "waffle" talk about kerry does more to discredit the accusers than the accused. That and the "liberal" name calling going on seem like simple mantras to mindlessly throw around while steering clear about considering whats really important to us remaining a strong and healthy nation. so up to this point i can only conclude that voting for bush is stepping into the trap of fear thats' been set for you. and if we have 4 more years of focusing on what bush wants us to focus on, we'll be blind to the continued collapse of our nations core of integrity. __________________ -my phobia drowned while i was gettin down.