Cheney and GOP getting very desperate
 

To me bringing up these types of threats 2 weeks before the election reeks of desperation. It's almost a pathetic threat much like "if John Kerry is elected the US will be attacked again." It was desperate the first time and it is even worse now. It's almost like saying that Kerry will be weak and won't take Terrorism seriously like W will. It's BULLSHIT, we all know it. Scare tactics in Ohio because Bush is losing in Ohio..... latest poll (granted I trust them about as much as I trust Bush.... but) U of Cincy has Kerry 48 Bush 45.

Then to bring up Edwards and take what he said out of context is ridiculous. All Edwards did was say in essence, "I believe if elected we can make the US great again and find ways to make paraplegics walk (granted I have mixed feelings about him using Chris Reeve's name but, Mr. Reeve allowed his name to be used and wanted to be remembered for the research).

There's a big difference between using fear and building hope (that I do believe we are capable of to some degree... in 4 years I doubt it but it would make a great start.)

==============
Cheney: Terrorists May Bomb U.S. Cities

3 minutes ago

By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer

CARROLL, Ohio - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) on Tuesday evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) could combat such a threat, which the vice president called a concept "you've got to get your mind around."

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us — biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," Cheney said.


"That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Cheney said.


Cheney, speaking to an invitation-only crowd as he began a bus tour through Republican strongholds in Ohio, said Kerry is trying to convince voters he would be the same type of "tough, aggressive" leader as President Bush (news - web sites) in the fight against terrorism.


"I don't believe it," the vice president said. "I don't think there's any evidence to support the proposition that he would, in fact, do it."


Cheney praised the recent elections in Afghanistan (news - web sites) but said they don't mean the U.S. mission there is finished.


"Does that mean it's over now and we can walk away? No, it doesn't," he said. "This is three yards and a cloud of dust. There's no touchdown passes in this business. We'll stay as long as we need to help them train their own security forces, which we're doing actively so they can take over responsibility for their own security."


In a campaign appearance Monday in Johnstown, Pa., Cheney criticized rival vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) for going "overboard" in his comments about Kerry's support of unrestricted federal funding for stem cell research, which Bush and Cheney oppose. He also accused Edwards of giving people "false hope."


Edwards told supporters in Newton, Iowa, on Oct. 11, "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." The actor, a quadriplegic who became an advocate for stem cell research, had died a day earlier.


"I thought, frankly, the other day what John Edwards suggested when he made his comments about Christopher Reeve, that somehow if John Kerry were president, Christopher Reeve could get up out of his wheelchair and there all of his problems would be solved, I really thought was an inappropriate remark, especially given ... well, given the false hope it engendered," Cheney said.
========

Link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_el_pr/cheney

Also, there's the whole issue of scorching the earth over Kerry's mention of his daughter's sexual orientation... like a week after thanking John Edwards for bringing it up at their debate....

... and after being completely mum when Alan Keyes lambasted her to help his career.

meh.

The more that all of the candidates and partys say, the more embarassed I am to be an American. I am getting a little tired of everyone thinking the American public is stupid as a rule. I hear Peru needs english teachers...

It didn't work back in July or August when he said it, in fact, I think that was when Bush's campaign really started going down in flames. What I can't understand is him saying it again if it wasn't for scare tactics.

What is he going to do say "see told you it would happen" if and when we are attacked again? That's fucking pretty damned insensitive, but .....

And is he promising by Bush being re-elected we WON'T be attacked ever again?, How can he make such a promise?

And if we are attacked again will it not be Bush's fault, after all he is implying, not just once but twice that it would be Kerry's fault and those who put him into power.

If I didn't believe it was just scare tactics I would swear he was threatening the people that if we didn't vote for Bush, we will be attacked.

I think what is not grasped here is that this is the driving issue this election cycle:

I brought up personal safety in another thread as a prime motivator in this election and was essentially told I was "silly" for doing so, but this is the issue that will most likely decide this election whether people like it or not, and given the fact of 9/11 and that terrorist have tried to get nuclear materials, it seems a valid issue.

Yes, you better get your mind around it and if you think Kerry can deal with it, then by all means vote for him.

I personally don't think he can.

Bush: Kill them before they can get here.

Kerry: Make sure the first responders have more body bags.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, tough call.

Or

Bush: Attack a weak, unthreatening soveriegn nation and create more terrorists while leaving our ports relatively undefended.

Kerry: Maybe we should see to it that our ports aren't so porous.

On topic:

I hope the bush supporters can wrap their heads around the fact that bush hasn't made you any safer.

I agree that this is the most dangerous issue before us in this election cycle. And, to be honest, if Mr. Bush had been effective in addressing this issue I might support his continued presidency. Unfortunately.....he has not. I do not feel any safer today than I did when I woke up on 9/12, mostly because my borders are not secure, and we have wasted, Yes I sad "Wasted" our resources on an illegal war, in a country that posed minimal threat to our security. I am seriously dissapointed in the leadership of my country, and have decided to attempt to correct what I see as a continuing cycle of terrible judgement in the only way I see possible. Removing the leadership in question.
I doubt Mr. Kerry will be able to repair the damage we have done to ourselves, It is unlikely any president could. But I would very much like to stop the damage from increasing, as it WILL, under Bush. If there is anyone who actually considers this to have been a good four years for America, I ask that you evaluate what has been done, Really been acomplished to protect your country after 9/11.

Bush certainly seems more gung-ho, but that doesn't mean he actually knows what he's doing. No more crusading, please.

"Personal security" doesn't figure in big with my worries. I'm far more likely to be shot by an ordinary criminal than killed by a terrorist bomb, even if somebody massively fucks up on national security.

The administration used mushroom cloud imagery to get us into Iraq...if it ain't broke don't fix it. Scare tactics are always effective, although honesty is generally the first casualty of such a campaign.

Both candidates have been using that stupid, macho "kill 'em" language that you seem to like so much. Personally, I wish that our foreign policy sounded a little less like bad action movie dialogue.

Basically, Bush is scaring people into voting for him, and has somehow convinced the American people that this whole fight can take place without sacrifice from them (lower taxes, no draft, etc.). Kerry is not being straight enough with Americans about what he thinks needs to be done in Iraq because he doesn't think they're ready to hear it -- not and vote for him in large enough numbers. I'm for Kerry, but both approaches are bogus, which I think is why many people are uncertain.

Ohh using false quotes about privitizing solcial security
and bring up the idea that Bush is going to reinstate the draft
and t alking about black disanfranchisment - when there has been NO proof of it ( despite what many say- ive seen no SOLID evidence blacks were disanfranchised in 2000 in Florida)

none of that is desperate


plz

Indeed. "Both sides" are utilizing these desperate scare-tactics.

Privatizing SS does have it's problems. If you do not know what you are doing and the market drops you're toast. Conversely, if you are knowledgeable, you can take very little and make a lot. I think privatizing for the masses will only help banks and brokerage houses. If I saw Bush's plan instead of just hearing his talk maybe I would see he has a good idea. But just talk scares me when I've seen what he has done in other areas.

About disenfranchisement I started a thread earlier where I believe both sides have set up this election to claim voter fraud and claim the other side stole it (which no matter who wins I truly believe will happen).

As for the draft, as I stated before, both Kerry or Bush WILL HAVE to draft if enlistment goes down or things in the Mid-East get worse. There's no way around it. You have to keep fresh troops coming and relieve troops over there and burnt out. No doubt in my mind that both are full of shit when they claim no draft.

So yes, I see the scare tactics from the Kerry side but to me, they aren't as bad as sitting there saying "you elect this guy we're going to get hit."

We're going to get hit again it won't matter who is elected and to say that it's more probable under one than the other is to almost beg for it so you can say "see told you so". When it comes to "homeland Security" I believe both will do the best job possible and I would not take their job for anything. However, I think Bush is more likely to take rights away if we have another hit. I believe Kerry will be more apt to try to build more alliances and work with people of other countries to combat the terrorists. But we'll never know what will happen till if and when it does happen.

[QUOTE=pan6467]Privatizing SS does have it's problems. If you do not know what you are doing and the market drops you're toast. Conversely, if you are knowledgeable, you can take very little and make a lot. I think privatizing for the masses will only help banks and brokerage houses. If I saw Bush's plan instead of just hearing his talk maybe I would see he has a good idea. But just talk scares me when I've seen what he has done in other areas.

About disenfranchisement I started a thread earlier where I believe both sides have set up this election to claim voter fraud and claim the other side stole it (which no matter who wins I truly believe will happen).

As for the draft, as I stated before, both Kerry or Bush WILL HAVE to draft if enlistment goes down or things in the Mid-East get worse. There's no way around it. You have to keep fresh troops coming and relieve troops over there and burnt out. No doubt in my mind that both are full of shit when they claim no draft.

So yes, I see the scare tactics from the Kerry side but to me, they aren't as bad as sitting there saying "you elect this guy we're going to get hit."

We're going to get hit again it won't matter who is elected and to say that it's more probable under one than the other is to almost beg for it so you can say "see told you so". When it comes to "homeland Security" I believe both will do the best job possible and I would not take their job for anything. However, I think Bush is more likely to take rights away if we have another hit. I believe Kerry will be more apt to try to build more alliances and work with people of other countries to combat the terrorists. But we'll never know what will happen till if and when it does happen.[/
QUOTE]


Bush never said he wants to privatize social security.
Bush said there wont be a draft while he is president, while Kerry states that there is a "very real chance for a draft is Bush is reelected"
the most recent Liberal ACTNOW group showing pictures of a fireman hosing down a blackman saying " dont let this happen again"

Building alliances w/ people getting payoffs from saddam ( ie france, russia and germany) isnt gonna work, nevermind the fact that france said they WILL NOT put troops into Iraq no mat.ter who is elected.

And you fasley quoted cheney- which im not surprised at but he said




Cheney, speaking to an invitation-only crowd as he began a bus tour through Republican strongholds in Ohio, said Kerry is trying to convince voters he would be the same type of "tough, aggressive" leader as President Bush in the fight against terrorism.

"I don't believe it," the vice president said. "I don't think there's any evidence to support the proposition that he would, in fact, do it."

You are quoting my opinions and that is all they are, my opinions.

I know he supposedly only wants to privatize a small %age of SS. But that small % maybe all you live off of. I didn't say it was bad or good I said I would like to see info on his plan and not lip service. Don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I also expressed that I believe both candidates are lying their asses off by guaranteeing there won't be a draft. I believe we stand a better chance of not needing one (as I believe Bush will keep us in war moreso than Kerry).

Both sides have setup commercials and seriously have ready claims for voter fraud.

Again, not refuting that these are scare tactics but I see both sides.

As for my quote of Cheney, I should have been more specific and said I paraphrase him in the context I believe him to be saying.


Before 9/11 there was no evidence Bush would be strong and a good leader. And at first he was.

However, IMO, Kerry will do just fine IF something were to happen, because he is just as strong an individual as Bush.

If kerry is so sure he will win- when will he give up his seat in the senate? hes just wasting potential votes

god knows he has missed plenty

And your quote on kerry being a good leader IF someothing were to happen shows my fear at its best

IF. he will wait til it does
Bush doesnt

I see Kerry saying on TV with the Reverand and Sharpton that we wont let thousands of black voters be disanfranchised in Florida this year

Urban Legend, Ive been shown NO hard facts that ANY black disanfranchisment took place in Florida in 2000- despite what Kerry and the black caucus suggests....


The difference is

RNC has lawyers ready
DNC has lawyers ready
Kerry is race baiting with Jesse
ACT is showing pre-civil rights era pictures saying " this is what republicans do to keep you from voting"

While BUSH has stayed mostly out of it

Partys aside, Kerry is taking part in his groups "fraud squad"
Bush is not

Kerry has voted repeatedly to cut funding for weapon systems.
Kerry voted against the first gulf war when we had a large colalition.
Kerry voted against intellegence funding.\

Cheney did too vote against funding for weapon systems- but he wont be the commander in chief...- but kerry clearly shows his priorties


While Bush might have had no evidence to be a strong leader before 9/11- it wasnt needed- we werent at war.
We are now and Kerrys voting record shows he is not.

I think thats been the point the whole time, its not 'almost' like saying it, it is saying it.

So desperate isn't telling people that if Kerry were elected, people like Christopher Reeve would just walk right out of their chairs? (what they said, not out of context) That Kerry would provide Christ like cures? Desperate isn't telling people that millions of black votes won't be cancelled like they did last election? Desperate isn't sending Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson out to spread those lies?

Kerry would make a weak war-time leader, which is why the military back Bush 3 to 1. Many military leaders would back this and have backed this. It is a fact.

And the people that would believe these lies, sadly exist. The people that would take Farenlie 911 as the gospel exist. And there's one party they affiliate themselves with, and here's a perfect example why I would never go for this party.

http://abcrad.wmod.llnwd.net/a49/ext...t101404.wma%20

So in the link you post (where pro-Bush radio journalist Sean Hannity tries to badger people into voting for Bush), where Sean Hannity tells people that Iraq attacked the US, that's what you'd call the truth?

Well, techincally Iraq has attacked the US. Everytime they fired a missle since 91' it's been an open act of war and aggression against this country.

Why let those little things called facts get in the way though...

Actually, I beleive that that is an opinion.

I must admit to some confusion about this Cheney quote;

While I don't agree with your final conclusion, I can respect your opinion.

Of course, but if there was a draft would it be so bad. Many other countries make you serve in the army before you can live a normal life. As long as it isn’t like Vietnam draft where those who come back are ostracized then it would be ok. IMO

distant echo from other threads...

Both sides are making outrageous claims that everyone should reject rather than playing the tired old "look what they did".

When the pro Bush and pro Kerry people here can shout down the claims of "voter fraud, suppressing the black vote, stealing the last election", equally along side the claims of "the medals weren't deserved, there will be more attacks against the US if Kerry is elected, etc" then maybe people can talk about the real issues.