Bush > Kerry.
:usa:

 

Preparing doesn't necessarily mean spending more money, for instance some Marines and army men that have died have had less than 6 months in their respective services while killed in action. Why should we send people that don't have enough experience out there? Look I care about how much we spend thats why were in the biggest deficit in U.S. history thanks to your good old buddy G.W. Like I said before twiddle dumb if we went to the war we might have as well went prepared instead of sending troops not equipped well enough to protect their life. Let me ask u civichik how would you feel if you were in Baghdad right now and you knew that this crazed President didn't care enough about your life and just sent without a bullet proof vest, just your weapon. I think your parents wouldn't think so highly of your commander and chief. People need to wake and smell the crap that this man is commiting. Kofi Anna himself said going to Iraq in his mind considered it "illegal", that is the leader for United Nations. Basically our image to the world is that U.S. gave the middle finger to the world and basically Bush said we don't need you, were ok with 4 countries in our "colliation".

 

Actually, it looks like as the local/state/other spend more on schools, the federal goverment has only paid the same percentage of that since 1990-1991. :thinking:

 

im not reading all that mumbo jumbo because i just woke up..and frankly, i dont want to.

let me make this point though...AGAIN. I'm not for or against Bush. As of now, i'm a fence rider. Don't point fingers at me..I'm just playing devils advocate.

 

So much conjecture has been made about that vote, and really all that happened was Kerry sponsored a different war funding plan that didn't make it, so he symbolically voted against the bill that he knew was going to make it through.

But oh no, he's a flip flopper on the issues!

Anyone with even a bit of a sense of objectivity can see that all of the examples given by the Republican campaign character assassins are all just strung together artificially and in some cases don't even indicate a real change of position.

But that doesn't matter, because what the campaign says is gospel to its supporters, and they will blindly keep spitting it out because they're stuck on the party line.

 

That's exactly my point!

 

Corey are you looking at the same chart I am? While it has not gone up much, it has gone up.

 

no real change of position? Yeah ok. There are hundres of quotes where Kerry contradicts himself, many of the times he does so within the same speech.

You talk about people being stuck on a party line, why don't you look in the mirror before you point fingers h:

 

Anyone can be quoted to contradict themself, including Bush.

The nature of progressive politics is to change one's position. That's the definition of progress. The Bush campaign has succesfully labeled that as something negative, when it's not. But they're a bunch of sleazy bastards so what would you expect.

 

Oh you mean like this?

http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=118263

Or maybe this

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/...lip-flops.html

:chuckles:

Bush changes his position and it is viewed differently because he is commander in thief and they need to be flexible, Kerry though is supposed to be perfect and make the right choice the first time and never progress in his views or change his position.

Funny thing about the change in positions issue though....Bush refuses to change his position on what has and is happening in Iraq....this is fine, but look what it has done to the US as a whole.