or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kerry: The horse has left the stable.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kerry: The horse has left the stable. - Page 2

post #41 of 240
Thread Starter 
Dems adopt Republican jingoism as a tool against the Bush admin. Edwards called Cheney Un-American...

This is exactly what I and a lot of true Americans have been saying about the Bush admin attempts to quash unfavorable voices in America.

Good for you Mr. Edwards.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #42 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Nick, could we maybe have one thread that you don't try to turn into a pissing match for one of your stalking horses?

Liberal media, yadda yadda yadda. The thread is about Kerry going on the offensive.

Sure and isn't it interesting to note how the media portrays the exact same actions from two different parties?

Bush going on offensive = nastiness.

Kerry going on offensive = determination.

So you don't like the fact I point out the spin, too bad. People like yourself have hypocritically complained about Bush using negative ads, yet applaud the second they are used in pursuit of your own cause. They are either right or wrong to use. If you believe them right, that is fine, but don't decry the other side for using the same tools.

Of course we saw this same tactic from you with the whole SwiftBoat issue. You can't stand the thought of conservatives actually being able to speak or engage the electorate.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Again, this thread is about John Kerry pointing out the failed policies of this administration. Rather than talk about those challenges, you decide to throw up your favorite strawman, rail against the so-called liberal media, successfully moving the goal posts of the discussion about Kerry.



It's a clever way of not addressing the specific issues addressed, I have to admit. You should've been a politician.

Conservatives like myself are laughing with glee of Kerry bringing his side of the election back to issues. Since Kerry has no plan and a profoundly out of touch voting record, it makes it even better for us.

We can now more easily point out issues like this instead of listening to Kerry drone on and on about his Vietnam medals.

Note the quotes about small business support...

Quote:
Even during this more conservative period, John Kerry'sEven during this more conservative period, John Kerry's voting record displays a remarkable hostility to small businesses:

Of the 101 votes in the U.S. Senate that SBSC has rated since the 103rd Congress Senator Kerrys record is unsettling. He has voted on the side of small business a mere 13 times out of the 101 votes that SBSC rated during the past decade giving him a weak 13 percent rating on key small business issues.

Senator Kerry voted against small business 94 percent of the time on tax-related legislation rated by SBSC. Given 34 different opportunities to support small business on tax issues, Kerry chose to do so on only two occasions.

Given 30 different opportunities to vote on the side of small business on regulatory initiatives, Kerry chose to vote against small business 25 times.

SBSC has rated four votes concerning the starting wage, and on every single occasion Kerry voted in favor of the wage hikes and in opposition to small business. ...

SBSC rated eight votes on health coverage reform issues. These ranged from votes supporting the passage of health savings accounts (HSAs) to allowing self-employed small business owners to deduct their health insurance expenses to help make health coverage more
affordable. Senator Kerry voted against the interest of small business 100 percent of the time.

Of ten votes rated by SBSC in the area of legal reform, Kerry voted in opposition to small business 90 percent of the time.

In fact, the SBSC could only find one category in which Kerry supported small businesses, and that was voting against corporate welfare programs that put small businesses at competitive disadvantage against larger firms. Otherwise, Kerry voted almost down the line to make life tougher on small-business owners.

Kerry actually talking about issues and his votes? Bring it on.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #44 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Conservatives like myself are laughing with glee of Kerry bringing his side of the election back to issues. Since Kerry has no plan and a profoundly out of touch voting record, it makes it even better for us.

We can now more easily point out issues like this instead of listening to Kerry drone on and on about his Vietnam medals.

Note the quotes about small business support...



Kerry actually talking about issues and his votes? Bring it on.

Nick

Bush actually talking about issues and his record? Brint it on!

Again, you avoid the specific challenge presented to you by changing the subject. You're very good at this.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #45 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure and isn't it interesting to note how the media portrays the exact same actions from two different parties?

Bush going on offensive = nastiness.

Kerry going on offensive = determination.

So you don't like the fact I point out the spin, too bad. People like yourself have hypocritically complained about Bush using negative ads, yet applaud the second they are used in pursuit of your own cause. They are either right or wrong to use. If you believe them right, that is fine, but don't decry the other side for using the same tools.

Of course we saw this same tactic from you with the whole SwiftBoat issue. You can't stand the thought of conservatives actually being able to speak or engage the electorate.

Nick

Got it.

Nick usually defends himself and the actions of fellow Republicans with oversimplifying generalizations-- such as all of those above.
post #46 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure and isn't it interesting to note how the media portrays the exact same actions from two different parties?

Bush going on offensive = nastiness.

Kerry going on offensive = determination.


Nick

The funny thng is is that Bush seems to have two buttons: 1. Pass the Buck and 2. Nastiness

for him forwards means nastiness
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #47 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure and isn't it interesting to note how the media portrays the exact same actions from two different parties?

Bush going on offensive = nastiness.

Kerry going on offensive = determination.

So you don't like the fact I point out the spin, too bad. People like yourself have hypocritically complained about Bush using negative ads, yet applaud the second they are used in pursuit of your own cause. They are either right or wrong to use. If you believe them right, that is fine, but don't decry the other side for using the same tools.

Of course we saw this same tactic from you with the whole SwiftBoat issue. You can't stand the thought of conservatives actually being able to speak or engage the electorate.

Nick

Bush and his surrogates lying about Kerry's record= natstiness

Kerry and his surrogates getting in Bush's face about the manifest failures of his admin=determination

As far as the Swift Boat stuff goes, a crude smear campaign is conservatives speaking to or engaging the electorate like lions eating christians is the empire speaking to or engaging the roman masses.

True, as far as it goes.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #48 of 240
BUSH CAMPAIGN IN CHAOS?....

A few days ago Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt told a group of young Republicans that reporters were "the scum of the earth."

Today, Holt has a new job. The Bush campaign has given him his walking papers and kicked him sideways to a job at the RNC.

Does this shakeup indicate a campaign that's about to implode? You know, like Kerry's after he hired a couple of new guys?

No, really, does it?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #49 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
No, we don't sit quietly: we attack WHERE APPROPRIATE and then use very strong cultural diplomatic means (as Rummy finally acknowleged need to be used)

Who is put in charge of deciding when it is appropriate to attack? That's right, Johnny! The president. That is his job. He made a decision, just like the job required. This election will tell if he the right choices. Stop the whining.

Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
and Yes I said repeatedly these people, the extremists, are crazy and can not be dealt with . . . but more people need to see that the extremist miasma is NOT an alternative . . . . many of these extremists started out as regular and even sometimes well educated and even nice people . . . they then get sucked into a self-reinforcing ideology that turns them into monsters.

The point is to change the climate that even begins to make that an appealing alternative . . . one good way to do that is to NOT play exactly into their hands by invading a Muslim country under false pretexts!!

Promoting a democracy smack dab in the center of the ME would be considered changing the climate, dramatically. You may disagree, but that does not mean that you are right. It is a different approach that may yield results over time.
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Many many Muslims find extremist thugs to be as terrible as we find them . .. these people need to be encouraged, their moderation needs to be acknowledged and supported . . . their ambivalence towards the US does NOT need to be tipped towards further doubt by badly planned and terribly excecuted wars where the reasons were entirely based on faulty info!!

The war was explained by this president and he gave 8 distinct reasons for going to war. 2 of those reasons have born out to be questionable as a result of intel (which is not exact very often) and still not proven to be false. Many higher ups in the military are not yet willing to dismiss the fact that those WMDs are not somewhere.
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
The 'approach' that says: 'force first' even before it knows what it is using force against will only make more enemies:
what needs to happen is intelligent discernment and a real knowledge of the region NOT bull headed 'Vision' politics.

What about the islamo-facists? What about when they attacked the mightiest nation on earth? Did they know what they were fighting? Did they have intelligent discernment behind what they did/do? What about their bull-headed "vision"?

When I was a young skinny scrawny kid and other kids beat me up, the only thing that saved me from more is pure bull-headed determination, coupled with a show of force that was greater than my enemy. We are talking about the same thing just on a bigger and deadlier scale, what's so hard to get?

Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
And yes, of course it spread like a virus, that is its strength: self-replicating thought form that uses those it infects to perpetuate itself . . all ideology is like that . . .
the surest way to combat that is to
1. Destroy the host of the virus (get terrorists)
2. Critically destroy the virus's capability to reproduce: in other words, to think critically about the 'IDEOLOGY' as a self replicating thought-form that has a logic all its own yet is not in itself logical . . . (just like all ultra-______ Ideologies: they are best dealt with by showing them to be inherently wrong)
so, that means creating an environment/background where people question the foundations of such Ideological Viruses: working with governments to change minds by changing the ground upon which minds live)
--that doesn't happen when the force used in turn becomes, or comes from, such a blind-fanatical virus

You have been watching too much star trek.

This battle is not that different than fighting NAZI Germany. What has changed is the logistics of it all.

You seem like a nice guy. You seem very concerned about things that are going on and how to spread peace throughout the earth. I commend you and I can agree with a lot of that, but the problem is, you cannot "nice" these people into compliance. As long as they breath they will plot and try to kill all that they see as their enemies. That's you and me and every other person that is not a radical or under the thumb of one. The Israeli conflict proves this almost on a daily basis. Israel is now trying to give the palestinians what they want, yet no-one seems to notice that Israel just wants to live in peace and prosper, amidst all of the suicide bombings.

Most democratic leaning countries are happy to stay inside their borders prospering right along - no desire to wage war over radical beliefs. As a matter of fact, I would argue that most normal people are more than happy to get along with whomever they come in contact with. given that they are treated fairly.

Maybe you don't believe that democracy and freedom breed peace, but I do. Maybe you think it's OK and normal to strap a bomb to your midriff and kidnap small children, if you think that you are being treated unfairly. I don't.
You and I seem to have fundamental differences in our approaches in dealing with and understanding issues. And really that is what this upcoming election is really about.

John Kerry wants to give the world a Coke and smile and "nice" everyone into a harmonious and heavenly choir of joy, where GWB wants to kill those who want to kill us and punish those who try. It's all about approach. You will vote the way you think will be effective and trumptman will vote the other way. We shall see how the country feels about each candidate's approach in 2 months.

This never-ending attack on this president who many feel is a pretty upstanding guy will backfire on you and your political brethren. And that is the fact that really bugs me about you guys, every issue goes back to the now debunked "Bush Lied" argument. It is not a winning strategy IMO.
post #50 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Who is put in charge of deciding when it is appropriate to attack? That's right, Johnny! The president. That is his job. He made a decision, just like the job required. This election will tell if he the right choices. Stop the whining.

No. The election will not tell whether or not he was right. This election is not some kind of potential vindication of his invasion of Iraq. Only history will judge whether or not his decision was the right one to make.

If, in 20 years, I'm reading about the democratic countries in the ME getting together to form a Middle Eastern Union, and if they all say "Yes. The invasion of Iraq started this," then I'll give Bush his due.

But for now? No. I say it was a terrible decision and a distraction from the real war in Afghanistan.

Quote:
This battle is not that different than fighting NAZI Germany. What has changed is the logistics of it all.

No. This is completely different. This is not a war against a nation-state, which is all the difference. What do they call it now? 4th-generation asymmetrical warfare?

I still suggest we invade Texas, since they've got plenty of terrorists there.

Quote:
This never-ending attack on this president who many feel is a pretty upstanding guy will backfire on you and your political brethren. And that is the fact that really bugs me about you guys, every issue goes back to the now debunked "Bush Lied" argument. It is not a winning strategy IMO. [/B]

I'll tell you what. You're not going to believe this, but I'll say it anyway:

Bush has been handled with kid gloves from his campaign through yesterday. He has really endured no attacks of any seriousness.

The gloves are off now.

And by the way...Bush didn't lie. But he and his weapons of mass destruction program related activities tip-toed right up to the line, didn't they?

4 years: 2 wars. $400 bn deficit. Jobs lost.

And you want to hire this guy BACK?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #51 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No. The election will not tell whether or not he was right. This election is not some kind of potential vindication of his invasion of Iraq. Only history will judge whether or not his decision was the right one to make.

If, in 20 years, I'm reading about the democratic countries in the ME getting together to form a Middle Eastern Union, and if they all say "Yes. The invasion of Iraq started this," then I'll give Bush his due.

But for now? No. I say it was a terrible decision and a distraction from the real war in Afghanistan.

I find your stance a bit confusing, although the long term stance we share.

You seem to realize that it could be 20 years before we see real results of this whole thing, yet you want to stick to a short-sighted political stance.

To each his own.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No. This is completely different. This is not a war against a nation-state, which is all the difference. What do they call it now? 4th-generation asymmetrical warfare?

I still suggest we invade Texas, since they've got plenty of terrorists there.

No we are fighting an ideology. The Germans had to be pummeled into submission before they realized their error. Same must happen here.

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I'll tell you what. You're not going to believe this, but I'll say it anyway:

Bush has been handled with kid gloves from his campaign through yesterday. He has really endured no attacks of any seriousness.

The gloves are off now.

And by the way...Bush didn't lie. But he and his weapons of mass destruction program related activities tip-toed right up to the line, didn't they?

4 years: 2 wars. $400 bn deficit. Jobs lost.

And you want to hire this guy BACK?

Thank you. You are right. Move on past the "Bushie Lied" lie and lets talk about real issues. It took 3 years. Do you realize that? Finally.

9/11, Clinton recession, Clinton recession.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it was Clinton's fault, just that it began under his watch, so he gets tagged with it.
post #52 of 240
How can you show that you actually read my response and then say stupid things like, 'I just want to be nice' with terrorists . . . such miscomprehension is astounding!!

Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Who is put in charge of deciding when it is appropriate to attack? That's right, Johnny! The president. That is his job. He made a decision, just like the job required. This election will tell if he the right choices. Stop the whining.

As was already said, the election prves nothing, this isn't a popularity contest, the proof is in wether or not the Iraq debacle was IN FACT better at dissuading terrorists and a better tactic in the WOT . . . .

IMO, it shouldn't actually even qualify for the moniker of part of the WOT . . . it isn't really, after all no WMD and never any substantial connections with AQ . . .


Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Promoting a democracy smack dab in the center of the ME would be considered changing the climate, dramatically. You may disagree, but that does not mean that you are right. It is a different approach that may yield results over time.

To say that you are promoting Democracy whle you move in your heavy weapons establich bases and then get the oil flowing as well as bring in the industry of your choosing is very close to absurd . . . . but more importantly, will it seem absurd to those who are supposed to grasp the new 'democracy' candy with glee . . . or is forcing a political system down their throats at gunpoint going to alienate the very people that were said to be being helped by it?
are they becoming terrorists because all they see is an invasion born from ulterior motives?

Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
What about the islamo-facists? What about when they attacked the mightiest nation on earth? Did they know what they were fighting? Did they have intelligent discernment behind what they did/do? What about their bull-headed "vision"?

When I was a young skinny scrawny kid and other kids beat me up, the only thing that saved me from more is pure bull-headed determination, coupled with a show of force that was greater than my enemy. We are talking about the same thing just on a bigger and deadlier scale, what's so hard to get?

Who do you think your fooling . . . you nver fought your way out of trouble in your life

The Islamo-fascists? They should be getting wiped off of the face of the earth . . . unstead they are regrouping, growing and retaking even Afghanistan . . . why?
Because Bush made the fatal and stupid mistake that you are making over and over that equates any indescriminate use of force with a successful WOT.
RUmmy realized that what we need is more than just force alone . . . why can't you?
and look at this: REPORT ABOUT THE FEW SUCCESSES IN ACTUALY FIGHTING TERROR AND HOW THEY CAME ABOUT This shows that the only actual successes in the WOT where terrorists were captured and plans foiled came about through the dreaded concerted police and intelligence efforts, and had nothing to do with Military Force.
You will also note that BushCo is pushing an absurd statistic that touts 1/3rd of AQ hierarchy has been destroyed . . . from where are they pulling this stat . . . they claied Al Zawahiri was dead of incapacitated, but yesterday he released a video of himself very alive


Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You have been watching too much star trek.

This battle is not that different than fighting NAZI Germany. What has changed is the logistics of it all.
etc etc etc

First off, you mentioned Radical Islam was a virus . . . then you don't recognize the real way that a virus works?!?!

You are right when you say it is a virus, and you apparently didn't know HOW RIGHT: so I told you: thoughts pass around from person to person like a virus, like the melody of a song, If I sing a few bars then suddenly you will sing a few bars . . . in a real way, you become the host for the melody which can then pass on to another person.

Ideology is exacctly like that: remove inoculations such as reasonable thought processes, critical thinking and etc and you allow that thought to pass on . . . destroy the hosts (ie: the Terrorists) and you are doing the best thing.
Best innoculation is to promoteindividual thought and to NOT provoke reactionary thought (reactionary thought closes critical thinking)


anyway: terrorists as Nazi Germany:
Terrorists are not nation states. They may be classically fascistic yet they are NOT a state. Consequently they should be dealt with APPROPRIATELY . . . invading countries that are in the ME simply plays into the rhetoric of the ideology of Radical-Islam and will breed more 'infected' terrorists.

as for being 'nice' that's just plain idiotic.

Fighting a strong successful war aganist terrorism should not forclose the possibility of fighting a smart war!!!

Wake up!!

Bush fuucked up and did the stupidest things possible . . . like that video where he is a boy and strikes out at all the kids in the playground he attacked the wrong person and made the other people dislike him further . . . people who patently dislike him are prone to turn into terrorists . . . which is happening . . . hence a terrible WOT campaign

(no time to check spelling. . . must go)
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #53 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I find your stance a bit confusing, although the long term stance we share.

You seem to realize that it could be 20 years before we see real results of this whole thing, yet you want to stick to a short-sighted political stance.

The reason you find it confusing is simply this: I personally find the neo-con thesis somewhat appealing. I don't think it will work, since it seems to depend upon some kind of magical turning-over of leaves, but it's a nice idea, in the end.

Here's why I don't think invasion will work: the billions we've spent in Iraq could have been funneled through other channels to foment a rebellion and overthrow Hussein. We tried this with the Kurds and Bush I essentially left them in the open to be slaughtered.

Quote:
No we are fighting an ideology. The Germans had to be pummeled into submission before they realized their error. Same must happen here.

While yes, we are, to a degree, fighting an ideology (and one that, I would add, is masquerading as a religious movement), the difference between the war with Germany and this is that we were at war with a country and its government. We are at war with neither at the moment, and that is why this is neither a war nor a conflict that is winnable.

Quote:
Thank you. You are right. Move on past the "Bushie Lied" lie and lets talk about real issues. It took 3 years. Do you realize that? Finally.

It took three years for him to get into two wars, yes. And apparently botch both of them. Yes. It took him three years to tank the economy, yes. It took him three years to notice that jobs were being exported left and right, yes.

Your point?

Quote:
9/11, Clinton recession, Clinton recession.

"It's not his fault" is really not the campaign slogan you want right now.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it was Clinton's fault, just that it began under his watch, so he gets tagged with it. [/B]

I don't know what "it" means in this sentence. And as for 9/11, Bush had a YEAR of people screaming at him and his staff that OBL was a problem and needed to be dealt with, and not ONCE in that year did he mention terrorism or OBL by name, so far as I know. Clinton gave a series of speeches from '93 on about terrorism. Certainly, much of the problem in the way we dealt with terrorism from '93 through 2001 is the result of a series of institutional failures in the intelligence community. This is the point of Clarke's book, really, although no-one seemed to notice because they were too busy calling him names.

The real kicker about your last argument here is simply this: either the president is responsible for things or he is not. If he's not, then he ought to shut his trap about them while he's campaigning. If he is, then he needs to be a man and own it.

Cheers
Scott

PS
Hope ya'll didn't get hit too badly down there. Watch out for Ivan. Looks like a bad one.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #54 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Who is put in charge of deciding when it is appropriate to attack? That's right, Johnny! The president. That is his job. He made a decision, just like the job required. This election will tell if he the right choices. Stop the whining.


Promoting a democracy smack dab in the center of the ME would be considered changing the climate, dramatically. You may disagree, but that does not mean that you are right. It is a different approach that may yield results over time.
The war was explained by this president and he gave 8 distinct reasons for going to war. 2 of those reasons have born out to be questionable as a result of intel (which is not exact very often) and still not proven to be false. Many higher ups in the military are not yet willing to dismiss the fact that those WMDs are not somewhere.
What about the islamo-facists? What about when they attacked the mightiest nation on earth? Did they know what they were fighting? Did they have intelligent discernment behind what they did/do? What about their bull-headed "vision"?

When I was a young skinny scrawny kid and other kids beat me up, the only thing that saved me from more is pure bull-headed determination, coupled with a show of force that was greater than my enemy. We are talking about the same thing just on a bigger and deadlier scale, what's so hard to get?

You have been watching too much star trek.

This battle is not that different than fighting NAZI Germany. What has changed is the logistics of it all.

You seem like a nice guy. You seem very concerned about things that are going on and how to spread peace throughout the earth. I commend you and I can agree with a lot of that, but the problem is, you cannot "nice" these people into compliance. As long as they breath they will plot and try to kill all that they see as their enemies. That's you and me and every other person that is not a radical or under the thumb of one. The Israeli conflict proves this almost on a daily basis. Israel is now trying to give the palestinians what they want, yet no-one seems to notice that Israel just wants to live in peace and prosper, amidst all of the suicide bombings.

Most democratic leaning countries are happy to stay inside their borders prospering right along - no desire to wage war over radical beliefs. As a matter of fact, I would argue that most normal people are more than happy to get along with whomever they come in contact with. given that they are treated fairly.

Maybe you don't believe that democracy and freedom breed peace, but I do. Maybe you think it's OK and normal to strap a bomb to your midriff and kidnap small children, if you think that you are being treated unfairly. I don't.
You and I seem to have fundamental differences in our approaches in dealing with and understanding issues. And really that is what this upcoming election is really about.

John Kerry wants to give the world a Coke and smile and "nice" everyone into a harmonious and heavenly choir of joy, where GWB wants to kill those who want to kill us and punish those who try. It's all about approach. You will vote the way you think will be effective and trumptman will vote the other way. We shall see how the country feels about each candidate's approach in 2 months.

This never-ending attack on this president who many feel is a pretty upstanding guy will backfire on you and your political brethren. And that is the fact that really bugs me about you guys, every issue goes back to the now debunked "Bush Lied" argument. It is not a winning strategy IMO.


And Nappy you've been watching too many war movies!


Or maybe playing a little too much " Blackhawk Down ".


All I have to say ( or what anyone has to say ) to bring down this house of cards is....

Where's the WOMD?????
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
And Nappy you've been watching too many war movies!


All I have to say ( or what anyone has to say ) to bring down this house of cards is....

Where's the WOMD?????

Nope, no weapons over there. (Real video)
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #56 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Bush and his surrogates lying about Kerry's record= natstiness

Kerry and his surrogates getting in Bush's face about the manifest failures of his admin=determination

As far as the Swift Boat stuff goes, a crude smear campaign is conservatives speaking to or engaging the electorate like lions eating christians is the empire speaking to or engaging the roman masses.

True, as far as it goes.

A crude smear campaign that Bush was smart enough to start with John O'Neil back in 1971 or so.... yep.. he even had O'neil vote for Gore in 2000 just to throw off the attack dogs.

Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #57 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
And Nappy you've been watching too many war movies!


Or maybe playing a little too much " Blackhawk Down ".


All I have to say ( or what anyone has to say ) to bring down this house of cards is....

Where's the WOMD?????

You see, there you go again...

The only way tat you could find that question funny and not scary is:

1) You forget Halabja and Simorgh Van and Qala Diza and 21 other small towns and villages during the Anfal Campaign, declared by SH and his henchman, to wipe out the Kurdish Population.

2) You really don't care where those WMD's have ended up and you care only to make this President look bad for purely insidious political reasons.

The whole world knew he had and used these weapons. The whole world believed that he was pursuing more.

You ask a serious question even as you mock. Where are the weapons.

They are either buried in the sand waiting to leach into the ground and sicken or kill or they are not in Iraq. So where are they?

That is the real question, now isn't it.

You will feel much different about the whole thing if they end up being used against someone. Ponder on that.
post #58 of 240
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You see, there you go again...

The only way tat you could find that question funny and not scary is:

1) You forget Halabja and Simorgh Van and Qala Diza and 21 other small towns and villages during the Anfal Campaign, declared by SH and his henchman, to wipe out the Kurdish Population.

2) You really don't care where those WMD's have ended up and you care only to make this President look bad for purely insidious political reasons.

The whole world knew he had and used these weapons. The whole world believed that he was pursuing more.

You ask a serious question even as you mock. Where are the weapons.

They are either buried in the sand waiting to leach into the ground and sicken or kill or they are not in Iraq. So where are they?

That is the real question, now isn't it.

You will feel much different about the whole thing if they end up being used against someone. Ponder on that.

Funny, David Kay came to a different conclusion. Eh what does he know. He was only in the country. He only spoke the the scientists engineers and generals who would've know where the weapons were hid. He only analyzed two decades worth of documents. You're probably right though because it's easy to see the truth from Florida isn't it.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #59 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Funny, David Kay came to a different conclusion. Eh what does he know. He was only in the country. He only spoke the the scientists engineers and generals who would've know where the weapons were hid. He only analyzed two decades worth of documents. You're probably right though because it's easy to see the truth from Florida isn't it.

DAVID KAY said a lot of things.

And I don't recall that he was of the opinion that SH never had weapons or wasn't pursuing more, including nuclear.

The things that you guys seem to want to skip over, is that SH had programs and components and continued connections to suppliers. Add to that the fact that he was engaged in an extensive effort to hide this all from the inspectors. I can paste the whole Kay report, I have it in front of me, though I know that you guys have read it, so why bother.

Many many people, in all parties were wrong, if you apply your logic. By the way, many said this long before this president took office, although I know you will will ignore that fact, if past experience with you holds to the trend.

I am fine if you want to hold people accountable for their decisions. If you think he made wrong choices, you have an option to get up on election day and pull the lever, punch the card, or touch the screen, and vote against him. However if you are to to appear intellectually honest, you must then hold those accountable that you agree with on a political level.

One person that felt and publicly stated that SH had weapons was none other than JK. He must also be held accountable for that. And please don't use the embarrassing argument that he was duped. He was on the Intel Committee for a long time. He wants us all to believe that he is a great mind that can lead the nation, and yet he also wants us to believe that GWB is an obvious blunderer. He then asks that you forgive him for his wrong thinking because he was outsmarted by the Dumb Texan. If a blundering retard like GWB can fool him then who else can, and shouldn't he be held accountable for letting himself be outwitted by an intellectual midget?
post #60 of 240
It is utterly unbelievable that you still kick that dead horse. . . you won't face it: Bush invaded when he should have listened to the Inspectors and checked his facts!!!!

THere were no WMD, there will be no WMD and many people knew that there were none.

There were no substantial connections with AQ . . . and every time Cheney neither says that there positively were but says that therre were, he is LYING by implication

and you eat that shit up like sugur pudding
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #61 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
It is utterly unbelievable that you still kick that dead horse. . . you won't face it: Bush invaded when he should have listened to the Inspectors and checked his facts!!!!

THere were no WMD, there will be no WMD and many people knew that there were none.

There were no substantial connections with AQ . . . and every time Cheney neither says that there positively were but says that therre were, he is LYING by implication

and you eat that shit up like sugur pudding

Argue with your guy Kay, not me.
post #62 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Argue with your guy Kay, not me.

I'll argue with you easily. The time has long past for us to find ANYTHING!

There were no WOMD shortly before the war.

There was no real reason for this war other than Dubbya's agenda!


It's obvious Bush mislead the american people ( notice I didn't say " lied " ).

And you sir are full of it!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #63 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I'll argue with you easily. The time has long past for us to find ANYTHING!

There were no WOMD shortly before the war.

There was no real reason for this war other than Dubbya's agenda!


It's obvious Bush mislead the american people ( notice I didn't say " lied " ).

And you sir are full of it!


Shortly before the war? Please specify. That seems to be different tack to the DNC talking points of weeks ago.

Maybe Dubya was right. I think he was, but only time will tell either way.

It's only obvious to those who want to believe that it was. Most clear thinking people know that is an oversimplification of the whole issue.

And saying mislead is just another word for lie so, try again. It is a clever little synonym, but it means the same thing. It's time to "move on" past the far left talking points. Rarely do you gain any strength in an argument by aligning yourself with radicals. It has been proven that GWB did not mislead anyone.

I am full of it, if you mean common sense. Thank you sir.
post #64 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Shortly before the war? Please specify. That seems to be different tack to the DNC talking points of weeks ago.

Maybe Dubya was right. I think he was, but only time will tell either way.

It's only obvious to those who want to believe that it was. Most clear thinking people know that is an oversimplification of the whole issue.

And saying mislead is just another word for lie so, try again. It is a clever little synonym, but it means the same thing. It's time to "move on" past the far left talking points. Rarely do you gain any strength in an argument by aligning yourself with radicals. It has been proven that GWB did not mislead anyone.

I am full of it, if you mean common sense. Thank you sir.

The Right invented "Talking Points" so you can't use that term against your opponent.

Don't count yourself among the 'clear thinking' . . . reading your tortured logic is enough to discount the applicability of that category to your mind.

Yes, 'Misleading' sounds an awful lot like lying-!! Gee . . . was he misleading the American people when he used faulty information? when he pushed the Nigerian fib as truth, when the Office Of Special plans in the Pentagon, set up by He and Cheney, purposely stove-piped highly highly selective information to the public and to the Administration? Was he lying when he said that he doesn't read newspapers and isn't biased, because he gets ALL of his information from his cabinet members? . . . (which would include the Sept 9th memo) . . . Was he misleading the American people intentionally when he consistently mentioned AQ and Saddam Hussain together in speeches in such a manner as to imply a direct working relationship? Was he misleading the AMerican people when laid the blame entirely on the FBI's shoulders?
IMO
YES . . . . misleading!!!. . . . call it a lie if you are more comfortable with that . . . but some of us know that he can be shown only to have unintentionally mislead . . . but that is only because the issue of his intentions have not been discoverable with concrete data yet

You are full of it .. . but it sure isn't 'common sense' unless what you mean by common sense is that region of self-deluded mediocrity which is the manifestation of low-brow consensus, shaped entirely by the ambient media-sphere of the right-wing machine: that sphere which mutters in its sleep: "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right" with grinding teeth.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #65 of 240
Thread Starter 
Kerry covers many issues. Disregard the article title.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #66 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Shortly before the war? Please specify. That seems to be different tack to the DNC talking points of weeks ago.

Maybe Dubya was right. I think he was, but only time will tell either way.

It's only obvious to those who want to believe that it was. Most clear thinking people know that is an oversimplification of the whole issue.

And saying mislead is just another word for lie so, try again. It is a clever little synonym, but it means the same thing. It's time to "move on" past the far left talking points. Rarely do you gain any strength in an argument by aligning yourself with radicals. It has been proven that GWB did not mislead anyone.

I am full of it, if you mean common sense. Thank you sir.

" Before " means any time relevent to the start of support for this war. That means from the time Bush hinted ( lol ) that SH had threatening WOMD to us and we should bomb him back to the stone age.

Nappy the time to tell is up and was up a long time ago.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #67 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
The Right invented "Talking Points" so you can't use that term against your opponent.

Don't count yourself among the 'clear thinking' . . . reading your tortured logic is enough to discount the applicability of that category to your mind.

Yes, 'Misleading' sounds an awful lot like lying-!! Gee . . . was he misleading the American people when he used faulty information? when he pushed the Nigerian fib as truth, when the Office Of Special plans in the Pentagon, set up by He and Cheney, purposely stove-piped highly highly selective information to the public and to the Administration? Was he lying when he said that he doesn't read newspapers and isn't biased, because he gets ALL of his information from his cabinet members? . . . (which would include the Sept 9th memo) . . . Was he misleading the American people intentionally when he consistently mentioned AQ and Saddam Hussain together in speeches in such a manner as to imply a direct working relationship? Was he misleading the AMerican people when laid the blame entirely on the FBI's shoulders?
IMO
YES . . . . misleading!!!. . . . call it a lie if you are more comfortable with that . . . but some of us know that he can be shown only to have unintentionally mislead . . . but that is only because the issue of his intentions have not been discoverable with concrete data yet

You are full of it .. . but it sure isn't 'common sense' unless what you mean by common sense is that region of self-deluded mediocrity which is the manifestation of low-brow consensus, shaped entirely by the ambient media-sphere of the right-wing machine: that sphere which mutters in its sleep: "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right" with grinding teeth.

Is this how you argue?

I can see how an uninformed person could believe that this administration was misleading the nation. But what I don't see is how after more in depth, mind you not intense, but a closer scrutiny proves that thinking wrong. Let me demonstrate:

When the US was hit on 9/11, in the chaos that ensued, would have been a perfect time to manufacture evidence tying IRAQ to the event. I remember many pundits speculating that SH was behind the attack. Yet a president that supposedly had an attack on Iraq planned far before his term started, attacked the actual culprits. An opportunity to lie and mislead missed.

I remember an incident before the election, where it was found (I think it was the neocon Fox News) that Bushie was drunk driving in his youth. I remember being impressed by the way that he handled the situation - very non-politician like. He 'fessed up to it. A chance to spin and mislead missed.

Not more than 6 months into his term he signs a bill to pass a tax reduction for all taxpayers, just as he had promised. He doesn't stop there, he fights for another one. I would call that sticking to what he says. No misleading there.

At the beginning of this year Bush had fulfilled about 50% of the 2000 campaign promises. The result of his leadership and forthrightness resulted in the highest and longest lasting (if I am not mistaken) approval rating of any president.

After defeating the taliban and AQ in Afghanistan (some may argue that the job was not completed-a valid argument) the president decided to take on a long time enemy - IRAQ.

This is where his history of honesty and forthrightness is forgotten. It seems that he had a total change of major proportions. The left now says that he is dishonest and stupid. When before they stood steadfast behind him.

SH DID have WMDs that he had not accounted for and WAS pursuing more. SH HAD plans in place to reestablish production at the earliest opportunity. These are facts that exist now. The US and it's allies have uncovered many pieces of evidence to support those original claims, not to mention actual WMDs, as opposed to mass quantities of weapons as some would limit it to be considered legitimate.

Maybe he did make a bad decision to deploy forces to Iraq, or maybe he didn't. That is a legitimate matter that should be hashed out. But as many realize, if they are honest, it may take years before that is clear, not a year as Jimbo would prefer. But to take that extra, unreasonable step to say he lied is fundamentally unfair, and to stick to it despite evidence to the contrary only spotlights one's bias and shrillness, not to mention the potential damage it can do by giving aid to the enemy.

Before I am jumped on, I am not saying by protesting this war you are supporting terrorists. I am simply pointing out that everything has a reaction or consequence. And supporting a debunked theory for purely political reasons could have a negative effect. I am sure JK didn't think that his words would be used against fellow americans as to encourage torture and killing. But they were. What is said about "good intentions"?

The fact that GWB has held so fast to his stance despite political pressure shows at least that HE believes that he is right. A dishonest man rarely has the fortitude to stick with a weak lie. The story is still the same as it was before. I see a fellow man that is willing and able to stick to his promises and decisions. Things that, because of my upbringing I guess, I respect.

As far as your reasoning that others fed him info that was flawed, that may be true. But there is no evidence that it was done on purpose or planned, but there is evidence to the contrary. Every president has used their cabinets to help them with the massive requirements of running a country. They also make decisions based on info that is given by them. No-one can micromanage everything like you seem to expect only from this president, but none previous.

The fact that a cheering session thread for Kerry has turned into yet another "Bush Lied" thread is sad and pathetic. You have the right as an American to go to the polls and vote your mind. So please do. Save the drama...
post #68 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Is this how you argue?

I can see how an uninformed person could believe that this administration was misleading the nation. But what I don't see is how after more in depth, mind you not intense, but a closer scrutiny proves that thinking wrong. Let me demonstrate:

When the US was hit on 9/11, in the chaos that ensued, would have been a perfect time to manufacture evidence tying IRAQ to the event. I remember many pundits speculating that SH was behind the attack. Yet a president that supposedly had an attack on Iraq planned far before his term started, attacked the actual culprits. An opportunity to lie and mislead missed.

I remember an incident before the election, where it was found (I think it was the neocon Fox News) that Bushie was drunk driving in his youth. I remember being impressed by the way that he handled the situation - very non-politician like. He 'fessed up to it. A chance to spin and mislead missed.

Not more than 6 months into his term he signs a bill to pass a tax reduction for all taxpayers, just as he had promised. He doesn't stop there, he fights for another one. I would call that sticking to what he says. No misleading there.

At the beginning of this year Bush had fulfilled about 50% of the 2000 campaign promises. The result of his leadership and forthrightness resulted in the highest and longest lasting (if I am not mistaken) approval rating of any president.

After defeating the taliban and AQ in Afghanistan (some may argue that the job was not completed-a valid argument) the president decided to take on a long time enemy - IRAQ.

This is where his history of honesty and forthrightness is forgotten. It seems that he had a total change of major proportions. The left now says that he is dishonest and stupid. When before they stood steadfast behind him.

SH DID have WMDs that he had not accounted for and WAS pursuing more. SH HAD plans in place to reestablish production at the earliest opportunity. These are facts that exist now. The US and it's allies have uncovered many pieces of evidence to support those original claims, not to mention actual WMDs, as opposed to mass quantities of weapons as some would limit it to be considered legitimate.

Maybe he did make a bad decision to deploy forces to Iraq, or maybe he didn't. That is a legitimate matter that should be hashed out. But as many realize, if they are honest, it may take years before that is clear, not a year as Jimbo would prefer. But to take that extra, unreasonable step to say he lied is fundamentally unfair, and to stick to it despite evidence to the contrary only spotlights one's bias and shrillness, not to mention the potential damage it can do by giving aid to the enemy.

Before I am jumped on, I am not saying by protesting this war you are supporting terrorists. I am simply pointing out that everything has a reaction or consequence. And supporting a debunked theory for purely political reasons could have a negative effect. I am sure JK didn't think that his words would be used against fellow americans as to encourage torture and killing. But they were. What is said about "good intentions"?

The fact that GWB has held so fast to his stance despite political pressure shows at least that HE believes that he is right. A dishonest man rarely has the fortitude to stick with a weak lie. The story is still the same as it was before. I see a fellow man that is willing and able to stick to his promises and decisions. Things that, because of my upbringing I guess, I respect.

As far as your reasoning that others fed him info that was flawed, that may be true. But there is no evidence that it was done on purpose or planned, but there is evidence to the contrary. Every president has used their cabinets to help them with the massive requirements of running a country. They also make decisions based on info that is given by them. No-one can micromanage everything like you seem to expect only from this president, but none previous.

The fact that a cheering session thread for Kerry has turned into yet another "Bush Lied" thread is sad and pathetic. You have the right as an American to go to the polls and vote your mind. So please do. Save the drama...


Yes but this is even more damning! The only reason and I do mean the only reason anyone went along with this was the tacit threat to us outline by President Bush which turned out to be false!

Bush did lie!

Or is incompetent!

Take your pick.

Either way this war was mainly supported by something that just wasn't true!

No amount of wriggling, or spin, or stall tactics, or " I just don't understand " will change that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #69 of 240
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #70 of 240
NaplesX.

The truth is this. This is how it actually, really was.

Iraq had no WMD; it was under heavy, well-enforced sanctions and could barely pay its own soldiers. The weapons inspectors did not find any in the two years they had. Iraq was not invaded for its WMD.

Iraq was invaded for reasons of polity; I don't want to speculate about the reasons for the invasion here because that's a whole nother topic and we've done it to death, and besides I've given up trying to work it out.

But Iraq really, truly didn't have any WMD. Honest Injun. It didn't. It just didn't. I don't care if Saddam wanted them. He didn't have them.
post #71 of 240
I've read through most of this thread and all I can do is sit and laugh.

It should be plainly obvious to most that the Democrats are now in a full fledged, uncontained meltdown. All one has to do is read the posts on these boards to see the sense of panic.

Kerry attacking Bush is not going to work. He's already tried it. Regardless of Bush, people still don't know Kerry and what he's going to do. It's the middle of September and the Dems are still talking about starting to get their message out so voters can be "introduced" to John Kerry. Dems themselves are publicly talking about what Kerry is doing wrong.

HELLO? The ATTACKS are the problem. Kerry has laid out two specific plans that I'm aware of: Healthcare and Taxes. He wants everyone covered under his healthcare plan and has not explained what it will cost. To his credit, he wants a $1,000 tax break for premiums. He has stated he wants to raise taxes "on the rich". The problem is that this action won't bring in all that much revenue, even if people supported it.

The reason he's going to lose is because he's running the same campaign that Democrats have been running since Carter. "The Republicans are war mongers and racists and only care about the rich and are going to take away medicare and social security and make your elderly mother eat dog food." That's the general idea.

One can't say Bush has nothing to run on. Everything's not perfect to be sure. We have a serious security problem in Iraq and a big deficit. But the economy? It's growing steadily and new jobs are being created. Captial investment is up. The markets are stable. Unemployment and inflation are low. All in all, as Reagan used to say, "not bad."

This election could have been a real debate (initiated by Democrats) on how we should do things differently. I would have ejoyed that. That's what the challenger must do to win. This is what Clinton did, for example. But Kerry hasn't really said what he'd do differently. His changing positions also damages his credibility. He's not even a very likeable guy. He's going to lose. In fact, I'm starting to think it may not even be close.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #72 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

This election could have been a real debate (initiated by Democrats) on how we should do things differently. I would have ejoyed that. That's what the challenger must do to win. This is what Clinton did, for example. But Kerry hasn't really said what he'd do differently. His changing positions also damages his credibility. He's not even a very likeable guy. He's going to lose. In fact, I'm starting to think it may not even be close.

While I agree that George Bush is going to win, I must point out that it's not really fair to say to criticise the Democrats for not initiating 'a real debate'. Over here it looks impossibly difficult for any real debate; Kerry's been kinda occupied defending himself from some pretty unfair stuff. This isn't the kind of election for any 'debate'. The Democrats haven't set the tone for this election. How could they have? The Champion Campaigners are the Republicans in this election. They're winning because they've set the agenda and the tone, and it's pretty brutal, ugly stuff.

Anyway, 'debate' is for girliemen.
post #73 of 240
And remember, John Kerry is the most consistently liberal member of the senate. And a serial flip-flopper.

Nevermind that those two things are mutually exclusive.

No one will notice.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #74 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I've read through most of this thread and all I can do is sit and laugh.

It should be plainly obvious to most that the Democrats are now in a full fledged, uncontained meltdown. All one has to do is read the posts on these boards to see the sense of panic.

Kerry attacking Bush is not going to work. He's already tried it. Regardless of Bush, people still don't know Kerry and what he's going to do. It's the middle of September and the Dems are still talking about starting to get their message out so voters can be "introduced" to John Kerry. Dems themselves are publicly talking about what Kerry is doing wrong.

HELLO? The ATTACKS are the problem. Kerry has laid out two specific plans that I'm aware of: Healthcare and Taxes. He wants everyone covered under his healthcare plan and has not explained what it will cost. To his credit, he wants a $1,000 tax break for premiums. He has stated he wants to raise taxes "on the rich". The problem is that this action won't bring in all that much revenue, even if people supported it.

The reason he's going to lose is because he's running the same campaign that Democrats have been running since Carter. "The Republicans are war mongers and racists and only care about the rich and are going to take away medicare and social security and make your elderly mother eat dog food." That's the general idea.

One can't say Bush has nothing to run on. Everything's not perfect to be sure. We have a serious security problem in Iraq and a big deficit. But the economy? It's growing steadily and new jobs are being created. Captial investment is up. The markets are stable. Unemployment and inflation are low. All in all, as Reagan used to say, "not bad."

This election could have been a real debate (initiated by Democrats) on how we should do things differently. I would have ejoyed that. That's what the challenger must do to win. This is what Clinton did, for example. But Kerry hasn't really said what he'd do differently. His changing positions also damages his credibility. He's not even a very likeable guy. He's going to lose. In fact, I'm starting to think it may not even be close.


-----------------------------------------------------------

" I've read through most of this thread and all I can do is sit and laugh. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Funny I feel that way about most of your posts.

Your continued tendancy to see an orange when an apple is present is amazing!

Unemplyment ain't that low in this state buddy at 7.4 %!!!!


From your favorite website CNN!


THE ECONOMY: SEVEN INDICATORS
The indicator | what it's telling us | next update
Consumer Confidence Weak Growth September 28
Retail sales Rebound in Question September 14
Leading Economic Indicators Rebound in Question September 23
Manufacturing Activity (ISM) Slowing Growth October 1
Industrial Production Strong Growth September 15
Jobs Growth Continued Growth October 8
Inflation (CPI) No Inflation Threat September 16


Besides all of this Kerry has plenty of material to attack with!

Dubbya's a veritable font of negative history.

I can't wait for the debates!



OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
While I agree that George Bush is going to win, I must point out that it's not really fair to say to criticise the Democrats for not initiating 'a real debate'. Over here it looks impossibly difficult for any real debate; Kerry's been kinda occupied defending himself from some pretty unfair stuff. This isn't the kind of election for any 'debate'. The Democrats haven't set the tone for this election. How could they have? The Champion Campaigners are the Republicans in this election. They're winning because they've set the agenda and the tone, and it's pretty brutal, ugly stuff.

Anyway, 'debate' is for girliemen.

I can't agree with you there. Bush has done some very controversial things to be sure. But, he's also endured well over a year of the worst political assault I've ever seen. It was month after month of brutal and often unreasonable attacks. I don't think he set the tone.

As for what's been done to Kerry, well, I've seen a few questionable things. The voting against key weapons system thing is an example. I'm not sure that's fair or accurate. As far as the Vietnam accusations, I don't know. The problem is Kerry really hasn't answered those questions. I just wonder why and I hope you do too. My feeling is he earned his medals (though, I do admit I have doubts about it). However, his conduct after the war is verifiable, including throwing those medals back and admitting to war crimes. These tapes of him WERE used in VC prison camps. I don't think I can forgive that.

I think the Dems have in fact set the tone. In many ways, the challenger must, in order to be elected. Clinton did this by focusing on the economy like a laser beam, and talking about change. He didn't smear Bush 41. He pointed out areas in which he would conduct policy differently. Read Kerry's Time interview. I'm actually amazed by how bad it is for him. He talks about Bush in almost every paragraph. I think his performance at this point is his fault.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #76 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
-----------------------------------------------------------

" I've read through most of this thread and all I can do is sit and laugh. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Funny I feel that way about most of your posts.

Your continued tendancy to see an orange when an apple is present is amazing!

Unemplyment ain't that low in this state buddy at 7.4 %!!!!


From your favorite website CNN!


THE ECONOMY: SEVEN INDICATORS
The indicator | what it's telling us | next update
Consumer Confidence Weak Growth September 28
Retail sales Rebound in Question September 14
Leading Economic Indicators Rebound in Question September 23
Manufacturing Activity (ISM) Slowing Growth October 1
Industrial Production Strong Growth September 15
Jobs Growth Continued Growth October 8
Inflation (CPI) No Inflation Threat September 16


Besides all of this Kerry has plenty of material to attack with!

Dubbya's a veritable font of negative history.

I can't wait for the debates!



OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!


jimmac, you are unbelievable with those CNN money links. Those are interpretations you posted, not facts. The overall economic picture in this country is good. There is no way around that. I absolutely cannot believe you're still trying to claim things are not going well.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 240
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I can't agree with you there. Bush has done some very controversial things to be sure. But, he's also endured well over a year of the worst political assault I've ever seen. It was month after month of brutal and often unreasonable attacks. I don't think he set the tone.

How many times was Bush impeached for partisan reasons?
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #78 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac, you are unbelievable with those CNN money links. Those are interpretations you posted, not facts. The overall economic picture in this country is good. There is no way around that. I absolutely cannot believe you're still trying to claim things are not going well.

What do you think your Bizzaro world " interpretations " are?

The difference is these have some common sense behind them.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #79 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
What do you think your Bizzaro world " interpretations " are?

The difference is these have some common sense behind them.

Are you by chance in academia?

Or do you live in Mass, or perhaps NYC?

I am just curious, it might explain some things. No offense intended.
post #80 of 240
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you by chance in academia?

Or do you live in Mass, or perhaps NYC?

I am just curious, it might explain some things. No offense intended.

Did you, by chance, received a blow to the head as a child? Just curious, etc.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kerry: The horse has left the stable.