The amount of people with this message is UNPRECEDENTED.
First of all, there is a point, where this sort of crtisism doesn't need to be played to the fever pitch it is. A bit like parents arguing in front of the kids. A bit like smearing the military---with vindictive collages of video and still images, some even from porn sites---during an ongoing investigation. "Moral otrage" edited for maximum impact, played in steady rotation---panties on the head, glowsticks, etc. are aprently morally equivalent to Stalin's or Nazi Gulags. (don't forget the irrisponsible quotes from hostile witnesses about raping 12-year old boys, etc.)
Bad for moral, bad for the efforts of people getting shot at---but good for poisoning the well for Bushco, and great for selling Ad time.
Zinni---what is he trying to accomplish, except to harm the administration---and sell books?
And this goes for every single tattle tale that has made good money by coming out on 60 minutes: Where is the solution? What is the point? In the end you get your name in the paper and an extra 6-7 figures in your bank account.
Where are these people working for a solution? In think tanks somewhere? Is Clarke huddled with O'Neil and Woodward---coming up with the flawless dream-team answer for Peace in the ME and the the end of terror? Clarke was supposed to be SOOOOOO smart, Zinni is Da Man---when was the last time I caught the whiners on CSPAN giving a policy speech at the Palm Beach Rotary club that would make difference.
No, that's right, it doesn't pay as well. Call Clark's agent, and find his price for a single speech. (And the next time I hear Kerry imply that we should have sent the 138,000 troops door-to-door worldwide looking for OBL I'm going to wretch.)
This has turnded into some sicko self-depricating, codependant pathos session where the the looser pays, and pays, and pays.
The terrorists want Bush out of office and that speaks volumes about the choice we face.
Are you insane? Bush is the best thing that ever happened to groups like al Qaeda! He gave them *exactly* what they'd most certainly want: the unwarranted and unilateral invasion and occupation of an Islamic country.
The real idiocy that underpins most of the pro-Bush arguments is that somehow we can "defeat" terrorism. This, frankly, is absolute nonsense.
At any rate, your (implicit) construction of the issue: a vote for anyone other than Bush is a vote for terrorism is at once reductive, naive, and wrong.
And this goes for every single tattle tale that has made good money by coming out on 60 minutes: Where is the solution? What is the point? In the end you get your name in the paper and an extra 6-7 figures in your bank account.
Zinni's been speaking out about this since long before the war. Furthermore, Zinni very clearly presents the practical and realistic alternative.
As for Richard Clarke, the whole problem he faced in the admin is that he was presenting workable plans and they were ignored, so your comments about the lack of a plan are misdirected. No one has ever said that Clarke is "sooooooo smart." What is discussed is that the Bush admin ignored the advisor in charge of counter-terrorism until there was actually a major terrorist attack.
Of course, subsequent bush admin counter-terrorism chiefs resigned and one is now committed to getting Bush out of office, thus demonstrating that the problem persisted, but that's another thread.
Anyway, it really is amazing pfflam. Are there any former centcom generals or NSC-types who haven't come out against this administration?
You gotta love what Tommy Franks said about Feith:
Quote:
"I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day."
And in case no one else posted another quote from a former centcom commander
Quote:
General Joseph Hoar, 1991-1994: "Paul Wolfowitz is a very bright guy, but he doesn't know anything about war-fighting, and I suspect he knows less about counterinsurgency operations....I think that the neo-conservatives had their day, by selling to the President the need for invasion of Iraq. I think it's now time for a clean sweep?and it has been for some time, in my judgment?to get rid of these people."
Do you really think it's as simple as this, or do you merely repeat the above because you think it scores points and don't care how shallow an observation that is?
Quote:
He has given no plan for how he would handle the situation in Iraq other than making some vague mumblings about how he will seek to replace our guys on the ground with a new international coalition headed by the UN. He has no plan people!
Part of the "plan" is that Kerry isn't Bush -- and believe me, that matters to leaders of other countries. Bush has badly damaged relations with our allies and simply having someone new in the White House is going to make getting international help in Iraq a whole lot easier.
Besides, here's an analogy for you: If you wreck your car by driving badly, do I have to be an expert mechanic who can fix your car just to have the right to say that you shouldn't be the one doing the driving any more?
Maybe Kerry can fix Bush's mess, maybe he can't, but the very fact that Kerry isn't the one who made the mess in the first place is reason enough to put him in the driver's seat instead.
Quote:
His idea will never work because there aren't enough countries that have the spine to take on a task that needs to be done.
Ah, so it's all about "spine", huh? Couldn't be that other countries warned against invading Iraq because they had good reasons to think it was a bad idea?
Given enough incentive (i.e., on the down-and-dirty money grubbing side of this, a piece of the pie on oil contracts, reconstruction contracts, etc.), and if not treated like US lackeys as the Bush admin is prone to do, I think we might indeed see more interest from other countries in helping to straighten out Dubya's mess.
Quote:
His is not a workable solution and I am tired how he always criticizes the President for not giving specifics yet he offers absolutely NOTHING of any consequence.
Not being Bush in and of itself is a matter of great consequence.
Quote:
He will pull our guys out when he fails to get new international forces to replace our troops there.
There are certainly no guarantees, but Kerry has a MUCH better chance than Bush in getting significant international help.
Quote:
If that is what you want to see then vote for Kerry. If you want the chance that we will succeed in Iraq and the war or terrorism than vote for Bush.
The logic of the above goes how? Kerry doesn't seem (to you) to offer anything better than Bush for fixing Bush's mess, so therefore Bush is the man to fix his own mess?
Quote:
The choice is very clear.
Yes: Kerry.
Quote:
The terrorists want Bush out of office and that speaks volumes about the choice we face.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Bush has probably been the best thing for Al Qaeda recruiting in ages. He's certainly made a self-fulfilling prophecy out of Iraq being a haven for terrorists.
Zinni's been speaking out about this since long before the war. Furthermore, Zinni very clearly presents the practical and realistic alternative.
If he was speaking out before the war that gives him more credibility. The Clancy tie-in is almost as good. Clarke---I just can't go there, he had too long to make a difference.
I'm tired of the media trotting out these people---and only certain people---it's turned into something of a professional hit. There just isn't anything remotely resembling balance coming out of Iraq. I just looked at second-hand email from Iraq (not the first one) what the media is doing is bordering on sedition. It's just not right.
Actually the original statement was fairly straighforward---that wasn't the point. The point is that the "editorial" choices being made are ONLY dwelling on "if it bleeds, it leads". It doesn't reflect anything resembling a complete picture of what is transpiring in Iraq.
Just to get this back on topic... Three questions:
1) Is it possible that Zinni, like Franks, is another one of the Clinton generals who are slowly/quickly (depending upon how one looks at it) being cleared out? My understanding is that lots and lots of the generals promoted under Clinton were less than popular choices--and given Clinton's relationship with the Pentagon, I suspect that he could've recommended Jesus Christ to do something and caught flak for it.
2) Since so many of these military guys are popping up, and since these scandals have effectively positioned the Pentagon against the DOD (i.e. Rummy's policy was apparently to sit on bad news in hopes of something else arising to deflect attention), what kind of fallout can we expect in the military vote? Gore never stood a chance with the military vote. Kerry does. Now that there's this major issue going on with the military/DOD/Pentagon, with former generals speaking out LOUDLY can we expect there to be an effect in the military vote?
3) I'm curious about the conservatives (Faust9, Fellows, I'm looking at you guys) who are jumping ship. Everyone's assuming, I think, that you're going to vote for Kerry. But when I think about the broader picture, I suspect that conservatives who can't bring themselves to vote for Bush might simply stay home--which in this political climate certainly plays in Kerry's favor, since the liberals are so unbelievably pissed off that not only are they going to vote, their started their own friggin' radio network to get the word out. Anyway. So which is it? Vote for someone you don't necessarily agree with or abstain entirely?
Actually the original statement was fairly straighforward---that wasn't the point. The point is that the "editorial" choices being made are ONLY dwelling on "if it bleeds, it leads". It doesn't reflect anything resembling a complete picture of what is transpiring in Iraq.
I believe that your point is actually something like this:
"We'd be hearing more about all the good stuff going on in Iraq if it weren't for those evil-doing terrorists blowing things up and shooting at us and distracting the reporters."
I swear. The next time someone tries to use this argument about the media only reporting the bad, I'm going to say "Yeah! I agree! But I think it's pandemic. Why doesn't the friggin' paper run a banner headline every time water successfully comes out of the tap somewhere??"
Zinni---what is he trying to accomplish, except to harm the administration---and sell books?
That was a nice attempt at some kind of psuedo-hunter s thompson . . .but it failed miserably.
as far as Zinni, and O'Niel for that matter: hasn't it ever crossed our mind that the people from the inside that have come out with statements about the lies and corruption or simply the incompetence, are doing it because they ACTUALLY CARE about what happens to this country?!?!
Aren't you PAYING ATTENTION!!!!
. . . I have three Brothers and sisters who were Marines, one was a Drill Sargent for years, one thing that you CAN COUNT ON: They do not fvck around with patriotism!! They take it very very deeply seriously . . . and that goes with being a Marine.
[B]Semper Fi actually does mean something{/B] . . . but it doesn't count for the Bush administration over the country . . .
Zinni was a Marine for 39 years!!
and you think he just wants some book royalties!!!
is this the tack that Rush is taking? you must be kidding!!
Just to get this back on topic... Three questions:
2) Since so many of these military guys are popping up, and since these scandals have effectively positioned the Pentagon against the DOD (i.e. Rummy's policy was apparently to sit on bad news in hopes of something else arising to deflect attention), what kind of fallout can we expect in the military vote? Gore never stood a chance with the military vote. Kerry does. Now that there's this major issue going on with the military/DOD/Pentagon, with former generals speaking out LOUDLY can we expect there to be an effect in the military vote?
I think there will be some(dare I say significant) military defection away from the republican party line this cycle. The war is a big issue because very few people want to spend 12+ months in a hot as hell desert. Note the 12+ months. I spent June-August in Bahrain a couple of years ago and man-o-man was it hot. Heat index pushing 120+ degrees (similar to wind chill except the humidity makes things feel hotter just like the wind makes things feel cooler).
Quote:
3) I'm curious about the conservatives (Faust9, Fellows, I'm looking at you guys) who are jumping ship. Everyone's assuming, I think, that you're going to vote for Kerry. But when I think about the broader picture, I suspect that conservatives who can't bring themselves to vote for Bush might simply stay home--which in this political climate certainly plays in Kerry's favor, since the liberals are so unbelievably pissed off that not only are they going to vote, their started their own friggin' radio network to get the word out. Anyway. So which is it? Vote for someone you don't necessarily agree with or abstain entirely?
My first instinct was to show my displeasure by not voting; however, this admin has to go IMO. Or economy chugged along at record paces when there were checks and balances between the three branches of government. We don't have that now thus we have a congress that is giving the pres whatever he wants. Ahhh, you want to run 2.4 trillion defecits--go for it. Ahhh, you want to create more burdensome social programs that are effective cash cows for industry--go for it. You want to invade a country and spend US tax dollars to rebuild said country using shakey justification--go for it. You want to limit states rights to govern public schools--go for it. You want to give tax dollars to religious organizations instead of simply not taking them from earners--go for it. I can come up with a 100 more examples but I digress.
The thing that cracks me up I'm labeled a liberal because I believe in an equitable (keyword) tax code, and I feel Bush is a douche' bag... Because of those reasons I must be an anti-American, commie lov'n, bleeding liberal.
and you think he just wants some book royalties!!!
is this the tack that Rush is taking? you must be kidding!!
The last thing I listened to by Rush was A Farwell to Kings---probably their best work....I dunno Signals was good too, but Xanadu, Cygus X-1....sunnofabeeeeeich!
oh wait, you mean Limbuagh---sorry, I gave up on him long before he gave up on sobreity.
Zinni, like I said before, has credibility if only for the Clancy tie-in. I just read his speech that giant posted...it was good, but I can't take much more of the media's selective listening. It's just not right.
The thing that cracks me up I'm labeled a liberal because I believe in an equitable (keyword) tax code, and I feel Bush is a douche' bag... Because of those reasons I must be an anti-American, commie lov'n, bleeding liberal.
Why are you ashamed of the word liberal? I mean, a lot of you left-leaners seem to shy away from that title.
I had a black guy call me "whitey" once, I thought that was just he was stating the obvious. If you were to call me a white conservative, I would have to agree, at least in general.
Why are you guys so afraid of being labeled liberal. I figure there is room for all types of views here, am I wrong?
I really think that if we just admit who we it would save a lot of typing. No more falsely labeling someone something. I think if we are honest we know where most of the regulars stand here, I know that I could easily, and probably very accurately predict what most of the players here are going to say or where they will side on any given issue.
Why play semantics so much? It seems very incestuous, to me.
Why are you ashamed of the word liberal? I mean, a lot of you left-leaners seem to shy away from that title.
I had a black guy call me "whitey" once, I thought that was just he was stating the obvious. If you were to call me a white conservative, I would have to agree, at least in general.
Why are you guys so afraid of being labeled liberal. I figure there is room for all types of views here, am I wrong?
I really think that if we just admit who we it would save a lot of typing. No more falsely labeling someone something. I think if we are honest we know where most of the regulars stand here, I know that I could easily, and probably very accurately predict what most of the players here are going to say or where they will side on any given issue.
Why play semantics so much? It seems very incestuous, to me.
Edit: the word probably should be masturbatory.
I thnk faust9 is afraid of being labeled a 'Liberal' because he is a Conservative in many respects . . . and, as far as I can tell, he has been a Conservative for years before deciding Bush is neither a Conservative nor good for this country . . . or the world
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
The amount of people with this message is UNPRECEDENTED.
First of all, there is a point, where this sort of crtisism doesn't need to be played to the fever pitch it is. A bit like parents arguing in front of the kids. A bit like smearing the military---with vindictive collages of video and still images, some even from porn sites---during an ongoing investigation. "Moral otrage" edited for maximum impact, played in steady rotation---panties on the head, glowsticks, etc. are aprently morally equivalent to Stalin's or Nazi Gulags. (don't forget the irrisponsible quotes from hostile witnesses about raping 12-year old boys, etc.)
Bad for moral, bad for the efforts of people getting shot at---but good for poisoning the well for Bushco, and great for selling Ad time.
Zinni---what is he trying to accomplish, except to harm the administration---and sell books?
And this goes for every single tattle tale that has made good money by coming out on 60 minutes: Where is the solution? What is the point? In the end you get your name in the paper and an extra 6-7 figures in your bank account.
Where are these people working for a solution? In think tanks somewhere? Is Clarke huddled with O'Neil and Woodward---coming up with the flawless dream-team answer for Peace in the ME and the the end of terror? Clarke was supposed to be SOOOOOO smart, Zinni is Da Man---when was the last time I caught the whiners on CSPAN giving a policy speech at the Palm Beach Rotary club that would make difference.
No, that's right, it doesn't pay as well. Call Clark's agent, and find his price for a single speech. (And the next time I hear Kerry imply that we should have sent the 138,000 troops door-to-door worldwide looking for OBL I'm going to wretch.)
This has turnded into some sicko self-depricating, codependant pathos session where the the looser pays, and pays, and pays.
Originally posted by 7E7
The terrorists want Bush out of office and that speaks volumes about the choice we face.
Actually al Qaeda endorsed Bush for reelection. I believe it too. His invasion of Iraq has been the dream come true for terrorists.
Anyway, it really is amazing pfflam. Are there any former centcom generals or NSC-types who haven't come out against this administration?
Originally posted by 7E7
The terrorists want Bush out of office and that speaks volumes about the choice we face.
Are you insane? Bush is the best thing that ever happened to groups like al Qaeda! He gave them *exactly* what they'd most certainly want: the unwarranted and unilateral invasion and occupation of an Islamic country.
The real idiocy that underpins most of the pro-Bush arguments is that somehow we can "defeat" terrorism. This, frankly, is absolute nonsense.
At any rate, your (implicit) construction of the issue: a vote for anyone other than Bush is a vote for terrorism is at once reductive, naive, and wrong.
Originally posted by dmz
And this goes for every single tattle tale that has made good money by coming out on 60 minutes: Where is the solution? What is the point? In the end you get your name in the paper and an extra 6-7 figures in your bank account.
Zinni's been speaking out about this since long before the war. Furthermore, Zinni very clearly presents the practical and realistic alternative.
Along with this we have Wesley Clark's recent exceptional article in the washington monthly that puts it all in perspective.
As for Richard Clarke, the whole problem he faced in the admin is that he was presenting workable plans and they were ignored, so your comments about the lack of a plan are misdirected. No one has ever said that Clarke is "sooooooo smart." What is discussed is that the Bush admin ignored the advisor in charge of counter-terrorism until there was actually a major terrorist attack.
Of course, subsequent bush admin counter-terrorism chiefs resigned and one is now committed to getting Bush out of office, thus demonstrating that the problem persisted, but that's another thread.
Originally posted by BRussell
Anyway, it really is amazing pfflam. Are there any former centcom generals or NSC-types who haven't come out against this administration?
You gotta love what Tommy Franks said about Feith:
"I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day."
And in case no one else posted another quote from a former centcom commander
General Joseph Hoar, 1991-1994: "Paul Wolfowitz is a very bright guy, but he doesn't know anything about war-fighting, and I suspect he knows less about counterinsurgency operations....I think that the neo-conservatives had their day, by selling to the President the need for invasion of Iraq. I think it's now time for a clean sweep?and it has been for some time, in my judgment?to get rid of these people."
Originally posted by midwinter
The real idiocy that underpins most of the pro-Bush arguments is that somehow we can "defeat" terrorism. This, frankly, is absolute nonsense.
Originally posted by 7E7
Kerry voted to give the President the authoriztion to go to war. He then voted against funding the needs of our soldiers over there.
Isn't this Standard Republican Talking Point #6?
Do you really think it's as simple as this, or do you merely repeat the above because you think it scores points and don't care how shallow an observation that is?
He has given no plan for how he would handle the situation in Iraq other than making some vague mumblings about how he will seek to replace our guys on the ground with a new international coalition headed by the UN. He has no plan people!
Part of the "plan" is that Kerry isn't Bush -- and believe me, that matters to leaders of other countries. Bush has badly damaged relations with our allies and simply having someone new in the White House is going to make getting international help in Iraq a whole lot easier.
Besides, here's an analogy for you: If you wreck your car by driving badly, do I have to be an expert mechanic who can fix your car just to have the right to say that you shouldn't be the one doing the driving any more?
Maybe Kerry can fix Bush's mess, maybe he can't, but the very fact that Kerry isn't the one who made the mess in the first place is reason enough to put him in the driver's seat instead.
His idea will never work because there aren't enough countries that have the spine to take on a task that needs to be done.
Ah, so it's all about "spine", huh? Couldn't be that other countries warned against invading Iraq because they had good reasons to think it was a bad idea?
Given enough incentive (i.e., on the down-and-dirty money grubbing side of this, a piece of the pie on oil contracts, reconstruction contracts, etc.), and if not treated like US lackeys as the Bush admin is prone to do, I think we might indeed see more interest from other countries in helping to straighten out Dubya's mess.
His is not a workable solution and I am tired how he always criticizes the President for not giving specifics yet he offers absolutely NOTHING of any consequence.
Not being Bush in and of itself is a matter of great consequence.
He will pull our guys out when he fails to get new international forces to replace our troops there.
There are certainly no guarantees, but Kerry has a MUCH better chance than Bush in getting significant international help.
If that is what you want to see then vote for Kerry. If you want the chance that we will succeed in Iraq and the war or terrorism than vote for Bush.
The logic of the above goes how? Kerry doesn't seem (to you) to offer anything better than Bush for fixing Bush's mess, so therefore Bush is the man to fix his own mess?
The choice is very clear.
Yes: Kerry.
The terrorists want Bush out of office and that speaks volumes about the choice we face.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Bush has probably been the best thing for Al Qaeda recruiting in ages. He's certainly made a self-fulfilling prophecy out of Iraq being a haven for terrorists.
Originally posted by giant
Zinni's been speaking out about this since long before the war. Furthermore, Zinni very clearly presents the practical and realistic alternative.
If he was speaking out before the war that gives him more credibility. The Clancy tie-in is almost as good. Clarke---I just can't go there, he had too long to make a difference.
I'm tired of the media trotting out these people---and only certain people---it's turned into something of a professional hit. There just isn't anything remotely resembling balance coming out of Iraq. I just looked at second-hand email from Iraq (not the first one) what the media is doing is bordering on sedition. It's just not right.
Originally posted by dmz
I'm tired of the media trotting out these people---and only certain people---it's turned into something of a professional hit.
You're blaming the media for Zinni's views?
Or for reporting them?
You lot are fucked. You know that?
Originally posted by Harald
You're blaming the media for Zinni's views?
Actually the original statement was fairly straighforward---that wasn't the point. The point is that the "editorial" choices being made are ONLY dwelling on "if it bleeds, it leads". It doesn't reflect anything resembling a complete picture of what is transpiring in Iraq.
1) Is it possible that Zinni, like Franks, is another one of the Clinton generals who are slowly/quickly (depending upon how one looks at it) being cleared out? My understanding is that lots and lots of the generals promoted under Clinton were less than popular choices--and given Clinton's relationship with the Pentagon, I suspect that he could've recommended Jesus Christ to do something and caught flak for it.
2) Since so many of these military guys are popping up, and since these scandals have effectively positioned the Pentagon against the DOD (i.e. Rummy's policy was apparently to sit on bad news in hopes of something else arising to deflect attention), what kind of fallout can we expect in the military vote? Gore never stood a chance with the military vote. Kerry does. Now that there's this major issue going on with the military/DOD/Pentagon, with former generals speaking out LOUDLY can we expect there to be an effect in the military vote?
3) I'm curious about the conservatives (Faust9, Fellows, I'm looking at you guys) who are jumping ship. Everyone's assuming, I think, that you're going to vote for Kerry. But when I think about the broader picture, I suspect that conservatives who can't bring themselves to vote for Bush might simply stay home--which in this political climate certainly plays in Kerry's favor, since the liberals are so unbelievably pissed off that not only are they going to vote, their started their own friggin' radio network to get the word out. Anyway. So which is it? Vote for someone you don't necessarily agree with or abstain entirely?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by dmz
Actually the original statement was fairly straighforward---that wasn't the point. The point is that the "editorial" choices being made are ONLY dwelling on "if it bleeds, it leads". It doesn't reflect anything resembling a complete picture of what is transpiring in Iraq.
I believe that your point is actually something like this:
"We'd be hearing more about all the good stuff going on in Iraq if it weren't for those evil-doing terrorists blowing things up and shooting at us and distracting the reporters."
I swear. The next time someone tries to use this argument about the media only reporting the bad, I'm going to say "Yeah! I agree! But I think it's pandemic. Why doesn't the friggin' paper run a banner headline every time water successfully comes out of the tap somewhere??"
Originally posted by dmz
Zinni---what is he trying to accomplish, except to harm the administration---and sell books?
That was a nice attempt at some kind of psuedo-hunter s thompson . . .but it failed miserably.
as far as Zinni, and O'Niel for that matter: hasn't it ever crossed our mind that the people from the inside that have come out with statements about the lies and corruption or simply the incompetence, are doing it because they ACTUALLY CARE about what happens to this country?!?!
Aren't you PAYING ATTENTION!!!!
. . . I have three Brothers and sisters who were Marines, one was a Drill Sargent for years, one thing that you CAN COUNT ON: They do not fvck around with patriotism!! They take it very very deeply seriously . . . and that goes with being a Marine.
[B]Semper Fi actually does mean something{/B] . . . but it doesn't count for the Bush administration over the country . . .
Zinni was a Marine for 39 years!!
and you think he just wants some book royalties!!!
is this the tack that Rush is taking? you must be kidding!!
Originally posted by midwinter
Just to get this back on topic... Three questions:
2) Since so many of these military guys are popping up, and since these scandals have effectively positioned the Pentagon against the DOD (i.e. Rummy's policy was apparently to sit on bad news in hopes of something else arising to deflect attention), what kind of fallout can we expect in the military vote? Gore never stood a chance with the military vote. Kerry does. Now that there's this major issue going on with the military/DOD/Pentagon, with former generals speaking out LOUDLY can we expect there to be an effect in the military vote?
I think there will be some(dare I say significant) military defection away from the republican party line this cycle. The war is a big issue because very few people want to spend 12+ months in a hot as hell desert. Note the 12+ months. I spent June-August in Bahrain a couple of years ago and man-o-man was it hot. Heat index pushing 120+ degrees (similar to wind chill except the humidity makes things feel hotter just like the wind makes things feel cooler).
3) I'm curious about the conservatives (Faust9, Fellows, I'm looking at you guys) who are jumping ship. Everyone's assuming, I think, that you're going to vote for Kerry. But when I think about the broader picture, I suspect that conservatives who can't bring themselves to vote for Bush might simply stay home--which in this political climate certainly plays in Kerry's favor, since the liberals are so unbelievably pissed off that not only are they going to vote, their started their own friggin' radio network to get the word out. Anyway. So which is it? Vote for someone you don't necessarily agree with or abstain entirely?
My first instinct was to show my displeasure by not voting; however, this admin has to go IMO. Or economy chugged along at record paces when there were checks and balances between the three branches of government. We don't have that now thus we have a congress that is giving the pres whatever he wants. Ahhh, you want to run 2.4 trillion defecits--go for it. Ahhh, you want to create more burdensome social programs that are effective cash cows for industry--go for it. You want to invade a country and spend US tax dollars to rebuild said country using shakey justification--go for it. You want to limit states rights to govern public schools--go for it. You want to give tax dollars to religious organizations instead of simply not taking them from earners--go for it. I can come up with a 100 more examples but I digress.
The thing that cracks me up I'm labeled a liberal because I believe in an equitable (keyword) tax code, and I feel Bush is a douche' bag... Because of those reasons I must be an anti-American, commie lov'n, bleeding liberal.
Originally posted by pfflam
hunter s thompson
I whish
Zinni was a Marine for 39 years!!
and you think he just wants some book royalties!!!
is this the tack that Rush is taking? you must be kidding!!
The last thing I listened to by Rush was A Farwell to Kings---probably their best work....I dunno Signals was good too, but Xanadu, Cygus X-1....sunnofabeeeeeich!
oh wait, you mean Limbuagh---sorry, I gave up on him long before he gave up on sobreity.
Zinni, like I said before, has credibility if only for the Clancy tie-in. I just read his speech that giant posted...it was good, but I can't take much more of the media's selective listening. It's just not right.
Originally posted by faust9
The thing that cracks me up I'm labeled a liberal because I believe in an equitable (keyword) tax code, and I feel Bush is a douche' bag... Because of those reasons I must be an anti-American, commie lov'n, bleeding liberal.
Why are you ashamed of the word liberal? I mean, a lot of you left-leaners seem to shy away from that title.
I had a black guy call me "whitey" once, I thought that was just he was stating the obvious. If you were to call me a white conservative, I would have to agree, at least in general.
Why are you guys so afraid of being labeled liberal. I figure there is room for all types of views here, am I wrong?
I really think that if we just admit who we it would save a lot of typing. No more falsely labeling someone something. I think if we are honest we know where most of the regulars stand here, I know that I could easily, and probably very accurately predict what most of the players here are going to say or where they will side on any given issue.
Why play semantics so much? It seems very incestuous, to me.
Edit: the word probably should be masturbatory.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Why are you ashamed of the word liberal? I mean, a lot of you left-leaners seem to shy away from that title.
I had a black guy call me "whitey" once, I thought that was just he was stating the obvious. If you were to call me a white conservative, I would have to agree, at least in general.
Why are you guys so afraid of being labeled liberal. I figure there is room for all types of views here, am I wrong?
I really think that if we just admit who we it would save a lot of typing. No more falsely labeling someone something. I think if we are honest we know where most of the regulars stand here, I know that I could easily, and probably very accurately predict what most of the players here are going to say or where they will side on any given issue.
Why play semantics so much? It seems very incestuous, to me.
Edit: the word probably should be masturbatory.
I thnk faust9 is afraid of being labeled a 'Liberal' because he is a Conservative in many respects . . . and, as far as I can tell, he has been a Conservative for years before deciding Bush is neither a Conservative nor good for this country . . . or the world
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
It could also be due to the fact that liberal has become a bad word thanks to a handful of blowhards.
Nope. Just one. Former President Ronald Reagan is the real culprit here.
Originally posted by midwinter
Nope. Just one. Former President Ronald Reagan is the real culprit here.
hm, zat so? But certainly figures like Rush and o'reily haven't helped the words reputation.