Close Topic Options

Politics - The Next US President? - Page 14

Very nice of Kerry to make such an accusation. But he doesn't EVER offer any alternatives. Nothing concrete about how he would do things differently.

As for the accusation, is he saying that we are making the terrorists MORE mad at us than they already are? Or is it that the "Muslim" countries are beginning to realize that we won't take the destruction of life and liberty lieing down, that we will respond to the horrific actions around the world?

President US The Politics

I can't speak for Kerry, but I will attempt your answer your questions.

Those who have already committed themselves to a life of terrorism hate us more than they love life. There is no negotiating with them or trying to persuade them to leave productive nonviolent lives. They are our sworn enemies and will kill us given the chance. We cannot make them MORE mad at us than they already are. We must do everything we can destroy them and their support systems.

What the Muslim "countries" realize and how the people in those countries react to our foreign policy is exactly the issue of Kerry's "accusation." Your question implies that our response demonstrates to these countries that any attack against the US will have severe consequences. The problem with that line of reasoning is that we are not facing the threat of attack by Muslim "countries," but rather from al Qaeda -- an international terrorist organization with cells throughout the world.

The question is whether the Bush foreign policy is achieving goal of diminishing the terrorist threat. Significant progress was made by going after the al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. We haven't captured bin Laden yet, but we have taken a significant toll on its leadership. However, the cells are now dispersed and unlikely to concentrate where we can attack them militarily.

Taking military action against Muslim "countries" is unlikely to eradicate al Qaeda cells that blend into the population. Rather, some of the local population is likely to join forces with terrorist groups in opposition to the foreign invaders, as we have seen in Iraq. Additionally, people in other Muslim countries are showing much more support for the insurgents than for the U.S. Every poll taken since we invaded Iraq has shown a significant increase in anti-Americanism in Muslim countries.

Let us remember that our goal is to destroy al Qaeda and its support systems. Experts on the Middle East say that current US policy is having the opposite effect. Many of these countries have large numbers of unemployed angry young men who are turning to Islamic fundamentalism and militancy. Recruitment for terrorism is on the rise.

As I mentioned before, we cannot make the terrorists MORE mad at us. Unfortunately, the Bush foreign policy is creating MORE terrorists. People who previously would not have blown themselves up in order to kill Americans are now embracing the very fanaticism that threatens us. We risked some of this backlash by going into Afghanistan, but many understand the necessity and justification for that action. It is our occupation of Iraq and the Bush administration's support for Israel's hard-line Likud Party that stirs Muslim rage against us.

Perhaps the most important battle is the struggle within Islam between moderation/modernity and the strict Wahhabi fundamentalism of the terrorists. This is a battle for hearts and minds, and right now we are providing our enemies with much of their ammunition. A military solution can worsen this kind of problem, not solve it.

Politics - The Next US President? History & Civil Business Politics

POLITICS IN U.S. GOES POP

When a group of big-name pop, rock and country musicians announced last week they were launching a nine-state tour to encourage the ouster of President Bush, it seemed to crystallize a movement that has been months in the making:
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...82929%2C00.html

Page 14 President US The Politics

but martin, aren't most Al Qaeda 's muslim?? not to mention that muslims/terrorists don't have to have any reason at all to be mad...as long as it "further's their cause" they can be as mad as they want.

so if you suggest like you said earlier that the Bush administration is "creating more terrorists", do you believe that instead of killing them off we should sit down with them for tea time and try to talk nicely to them and tell them to please stop killing people cuz it just isn't right ??? that seems a bit ridiculous to me.

President US The Politics

Of course, there is a lot of discussion about the relative merits of the candidates from the two major parties for President of the US. This discussion is going on in major media outlets, on the internet, in personal conversations, probably even on text messaging on cell phones.

Today, I ran across a rather interesting analysis in the OpinionJournal (a function of the Wall Street Journal), about the differences between those presidents who served as executives (governors, generals, etc) before being elected to the office, and those who served as legislators (Senators, Representatives).

There were some excellent points made in this short essay. Governors tend to be leaders. They must make decisions, take actions, and perform specific functions. They don't have the luxury of being able to take both sides of a position. They can't send out soldiers to defend a hill before they decide NOT to send them out. They can't (without losing all credibility) sign executive orders then turn around in a few days (weeks, months) and rescind them - apparently on a whim.

On the other hand, legislators (Senators), MUST be compromisers. They MUST be familiar with, comfortable with, and proficient with the activities of a committee. It is their job to build a consensus, rally support, and get an item to pass the vote. They are the opposite of leaders (in general). They are managers. It is not necessarily their job to stick their necks out, to take a firm stand on a particular issue.

But the President of the United States needs to be a real leader. He (or she) is the head of the executive branch of the United States. He needs to stake out his territory, then hold to it.

Here are a couple of quotes from this [url=https://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110005433]excellent essay:

Go read the essay. It'll make you think.

Politics - The Next US President?

Excellent article, Nighthawk. Thank you so much for sharing that with us. Very interesting points made.

Roz

Politics The US President - Page 14

Whether former senators or former governors make better presidents is a generalization that is secondary to the qualifications and policies of the specific candidates for the nation's highest office.

The Wall Streeet Journial opinion page (consistent in its partisan support for Bush and the interests of the wealthy) provides a very distorted picture of the tax policies of the 2004 presidential candidates.

The article brought up the issue of Social Security, which is perhaps the single biggest tax-related reason for turning Bush out of office in 2004. I personally think tax cuts are fine, as long as they don't create budget deficits -- but Bush's tax cuts have hleped turn a record budget surplus into record deficits very quickly. And I don't especially mind the fact that Bush's tax cuts go overwhelmingly to the wealthy -- the wealthy do, after all, generally (though not always) pay more taxes.

What I do mind is the huge redistribution of wealth from the retirement of working people to the coffers of the wealthy by destroying the solvency of Social Security.

The Clinton surplus was mostly the result of the accumulation of increased payroll taxes over the last two decades. During the Reagan administration it became apparent that when the baby boom generation retired, the number of retirees would increase relative to the number of workers. This would place an enormous strain on Social Security and Medicare. Therefore, payroll taxes (called "regressive" taxes because they take a bigger chunk from the paychecks of low and middle class workers) were increased by 2%. This was a wise measure to prepare for the future burden of the boomers' retirement.

Many people made fun of Al Gore's "lock box" to protect the Social Security surplus. I know I won't be laughing when the money I've been paying into the system all these years is not available. Working people like me have been paying extra taxes since 1983 specifically targeted for our retirement, but this nest egg his been raided and given to the richest Americans at a time when the gap between the top few percent and the rest of us is wider than any time since the Great Depression.

Bush's plans to partially privatize Social Security ignores the normal operation of the system. The accumulation of the surplus was a response to a demographic anamoly -- the baby boom generation. Normally, Social Security functions by having current retiree benefits paid by current workers -- then when they retire, the next generation pays their benefits.

What Bush wants to do is divert part of the current payroll taxes to private investment accounts. That sounds fine, except for the fact that the same taxes have already been promised to current retirees. The only way privatization can work is to take a one-time big hit -- if current taxes are diverted from current retirees, the difference will have to be taken from general revenues.

This can work when you have a large budget surplus. Unfortunately, because of Bush's tax policy, not only do we NOT have a surplus, we have huge deficits -- and we don't even have the funds that were targeted for the boomers' retirement.

Bush has a plan alright. It is basically a plan to destroy Social Security, because there is no way to deal with the looming crisis except by substantially raising taxes or slashing benefits. Either way, it is going to hurt much more because of Bush's irresponsible tax policies and huge deficits.

John Kerry will not be able to fix this problem overnight, but he will begin to reverse the trend. Contrary to what the Wall Street Journal says, he has detailed plans. He will repeal Bush's tax cuts for incomes over $200,000 and close the loopholes used by corporations to avoid paying taxes -- such as moving their address to a Bremuda mail box.

If you are truly interested in Kerry's economic plan, here is his web site. The specifics on tax policy are on the right-hand side; scroll down to "dowload detailed plans" (PDF format):
https://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

Politics The US President Politics Business Civil & History - Page 14

I would like for Americans to answer this question. Well I suppose we all heard about the NJ Democrat who resigned after confessing that he was gay and had an extramarital affair with another man. In what way is this event going to affect Kerry?.