Um, that is true with every president and legislator and mayor and just about any politician.
You guys act as if all of a sudden, what a president does effects the population, good or bad. If Kerry gets elected he will have the same effects on the American public. Good and Bad.
I am glad you guys were not around during WWII. The American Public sacrificed a whole lot, for little in return, except the knowledge that they were making the future better for future generations.
Sometimes the "in the long run" view is what you need when solving problems. Of course in this time of me first and screw everyone else that may not be possible. Wether you agree with the way it was done or not, you cannot say that the middle east does not have a whole new future.
The big picture.
Kerry will likely rule very similar to Bush, despite all of the hype right now, if he is elected.
I doubt it. In 50 years I haven't seen anyone else that blatantly insensitive to the welfare of the american people as a whole.
Ummm...yes it is. If not, then why study history at all?
We study history to gain knowledge and perspective. Whether it tells anything about what happens in the future is indeterminant for most things. Heck, we even study history in an effort to not repeat certain events!
If it is such a predictor of politics, why did Bush even try to buck the "perceived" trends? Because the past does not indicate the future. It's not like these trends aren't a soft and mushy set of statistics with lots of exceptions in the first place.
Kerry will likely rule very similar to Bush, despite all of the hype right now, if he is elected.
Maybe. But hopefully Kerry won't have the extreme ideological fools Bush has, in his administration. The likes of Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al who were even consired too extreme by Bush sr's administration. In fact I read somewhere they were referred to as the "crazies" in the Republican circles. \
The only way to reduce terrorism is through diplomacy. Bush doesn't support a policy of diplomacy. I would rather see our President do nothing than do what Bush has done, which is to instigate further terrorism through adversity.
I don't care what Kerry does to fight the WOT. It could NOT be any worse than what Bush has done. So am I supporting a "anyone but Bush" campaign? You betcha.
Likewise for the economy, taxes, education, health. No one could possibly do worse than Bush has done.
I am a Bush hater! Bash me? Fine. I know where I stand and I recognize the true measure of the "success" (or failure, as it stands) of the policies of the Bush administration.
"There's something rotten in the state of Denmark". And we know exactly who it is.
1. DIPLOMACY? You absolutely MUST be joking. One cannot negotiate with those who wish one's destruction. Terrorists and terror sponsoring states respect one thing, and that's raw power. The US is not at fault for the plight of the Middle East, from its corrupt and brutal dictatorships to its total ethnic and religous instability. We must hunt and kills terrorists and punish the states that sponsor them. What other way is there?
2. Economy: What did Bush do? Unemployment is low, the markets are up, GDP growth is strong and we're out of recession (which by the way was much milder than the last one). Job growth needs to improve...but the economy is quite sound. A disaster? No.
3. Education: The federal budget is up 40%. NCLBA, for all it's flaws, demands accountability for schools on everything from scores to attendance. Please explain what you see to be the problem. It sure as hell isn't money. We spend more on education per student than any other country in the world.
4. Healthcare: That's because an ultra-leftist like yourself believes we need nationalized heathcare for all Americans. It's not a right in this country. Period. Despite that, Bush signed a massive federal entitlement program for Medicare, providing prescription drug coverage. Call for tort reform and more government regualtion of insurance companies and maybe you'll have my attention.
5. Taxes: I got a tax decrease. Everyone did. Let me say that again..EVERYONE. Play all the class warfare games you want, but the rich pay the cast majority of taxes and when taxes are cut, they should get the most real-dollar benefit.
Hell, we already know with Iraq that Bush has MAJOR errors in his judgement.
How unbelieveably narrow minded. You only believe that because you oppose the action. What errors to you refer to?
giant:
Quote:
What if I told you I agree more with the majority of ideas associated with the pubublican party than those of the democratic party?
You probably wouldn't believe me, because republicans are currently too lost to even look at their own party objectively and realize what's going on.
Well, number one I think that's untrue. But if it is, I'd ask you to realize that I for one have some serious criticisms of the party. For one, it's supporting too much spending...particularly with social spending. It's also supporting more big government by the day. That being said, the party only seems to be gaining popularity. In any case, the Democratic party is far, far worse shape....and has no particular agenda right now other than unseating Bush.
Uh no. That would be prolonging the recession. Lieing to start a war. Cutting taxes to shut the public up and feed his rich friends. The net result is stellar deficit numbers. There's more if you want it?
Perhaps you mean "Lying" as opposed to "lieing". Either way, there is no...I repeat...NO evidence of that at all.
Prolonging a recession? How? What policies caused that? The recession lasted less than 18 months! As for "why" he cut taxes, can you again prove that? I'll give you the deficit....but I'll also remind you that Congress appropriates, not Bush.
Quote:
I doubt it. In 50 years I haven't seen anyone else that blatantly insensitive to the welfare of the american people as a whole.
Somehow I don't think you were saying the same thing when Bill Clinton raised taxes BIGTIME on the MIDDLE CLASS. Your statement is ludicrous.
Gilsch:
Quote:
Maybe. But hopefully Kerry won't have the extreme ideological fools Bush has, in his administration. The likes of Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al who were even consired too extreme by Bush sr's administration. In fact I read somewhere they were referred to as the "crazies" in the Republican circles.
Wow. One word: Delusional. You read somehwhere? HAHAHAHHA. Stop...you're killing me.
How unbelieveably narrow minded. You only believe that because you oppose the action. What errors to you refer to?
WMD? The Iraqis would welcome us as their liberators? Problems with the supply lines during the blitzkrieg? The hasty re-assignment of soldiers in Afghanistan? The post-war? The timetable for everything? The mobile labs?
And how has Bush responded to all of this? "It wasn't my fault." That's his answer to everything, it seems.
Quote:
Well, number one I think that's untrue. But if it is, I'd ask you to realize that I for one have some serious criticisms of the party. For one, it's supporting too much spending...particularly with social spending. It's also supporting more big government by the day. That being said, the party only seems to be gaining popularity. In any case, the Democratic party is far, far worse shape....and has no particular agenda right now other than unseating Bush. [/B]
I actually agree with you on most of this. There is hope, though. The Dems desperately need a real foreign policy, which I would argue they've never actually had.
With that said, unseating Bush isn't exactly a weak agenda. They ain't trying to get you to switch votes, you know.
WMD? The Iraqis would welcome us as their liberators? Problems with the supply lines during the blitzkrieg? The hasty re-assignment of soldiers in Afghanistan? The post-war? The timetable for everything? The mobile labs?
And how has Bush responded to all of this? "It wasn't my fault." That's his answer to everything, it seems.
I actually agree with you on most of this. There is hope, though. The Dems desperately need a real foreign policy, which I would argue they've never actually had.
With that said, unseating Bush isn't exactly a weak agenda. They ain't trying to get you to switch votes, you know.
Cheers
Scott
1. We have been welcomed as liberators on the whole. The majority of the population is not lobbing grenades at us.
2. Supply Lines: That's a pretty specific issue. I've heard it as well....but isn't that more of a Pentagon management issue? It obviously didn't disrupt the invasion.
3. Afghansistand: You'll have to elaborate. I'm not sure what, specifically, you;re talking about.
4. Post war: Again, what are you talking about? The post war plan was put into effect even before the war ended. Massive supply convoys entered the country. Infastructure is being rebuilt. A Coalition Authority was established. A provisional government by the end of this year. Yes, there are security problems. The picture you're painting is not accurate.
5. I don't think Bush has said "it isn't my fault" on really anything. Overall the operation is going very well. We have some casualties, but even that number is extremely low. We took over an entire country and have lost 600 lives doing it. I don't mean to scoff at that loss of life, but in military terms, it's a very low number. Those that have visited Iraq say that the picture is very different from the one we see on the news every night. Your statements are predicated on the notion that the effort itself is going badly...and it's not.
Perhaps you mean "Lying" as opposed to "lieing". Either way, there is no...I repeat...NO evidence of that at all.
THIS comes to mind right off hand . . . besides all of the other stuff that seems to force itself at the perirphery whish I am too tired, in my fevered ill state, to look for.
and as for that 'eletist' point and the rural vote . . . I said as much because I live in a rural environment and see what I see . . . but mainly because of the RED states and regions that voted for Bush are Rural . . . and if you followed my point that means ipso-facto- then they are refusing to be critical, insightful or intelligent
But seriously it is because he, who is NOT RURAL even though he comes from Texas, panders to the image of his folksy-goodness and that image is passed around out in these parts like it were-gospel . . .
all these rural folks who think that eurban people are pretentious while they are just 'dalt-of-the-earth' and the last thing in the world that they could be is superficial are in truly FOOLING themselves . . . . these people are as prone to falsity and self-delusion as anybody anywhere . . .
and a major means of their achieving that typical state of self-delusion (a problem that we are all prone to) is through propogating a FALSE image of "Honesty"
I don't like GWB or much of what he stands for. Unfortunately, baring a major economic collapse or an event that kills thousands of Americans, GWB will be reelected. If he produces OBL's head on a stick ,he will be reelected by a landslide.
I think his bumbling ways are a big part of what makes him attractive to so many Americans. People are not intimidated by him. He is like every other dolt in the bar.
THIS comes to mind right off hand . . . besides all of the other stuff that seems to force itself at the perirphery whish I am too tired, in my fevered ill state, to look for.
and as for that 'eletist' point and the rural vote . . . I said as much because I live in a rural environment and see what I see . . . but mainly because of the RED states and regions that voted for Bush are Rural . . . and if you followed my point that means ipso-facto- then they are refusing to be critical, insightful or intelligent
But seriously it is because he, who is NOT RURAL even though he comes from Texas, panders to the image of his folksy-goodness and that image is passed around out in these parts like it were-gospel . . .
all these rural folks who think that eurban people are pretentious while they are just 'dalt-of-the-earth' and the last thing in the world that they could be is superficial are in truly FOOLING themselves . . . . these people are as prone to falsity and self-delusion as anybody anywhere . . .
and a major means of their achieving that typical state of self-delusion (a problem that we are all prone to) is through propogating a FALSE image of "Honesty"
You're off base. Your analysis is predicated on the old Leftist line: "If only people were more informed, they would NEVER support Bush". It's a sort of self-reinforcing delusion for the Left. Those who disagree with you are stupid. How convenient.
People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage. They have valid viewpoints which you dismiss. Ironically, I'd argue it is the urban Left that is uninformed. Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?
On Bush, what is he? Is he a common fool, or elitist pretending to be one? You can't have it both ways.
Perhaps you mean "Lying" as opposed to "lieing". Either way, there is no...I repeat...NO evidence of that at all.
Prolonging a recession? How? What policies caused that? The recession lasted less than 18 months! As for "why" he cut taxes, can you again prove that? I'll give you the deficit....but I'll also remind you that Congress appropriates, not Bush.
Somehow I don't think you were saying the same thing when Bill Clinton raised taxes BIGTIME on the MIDDLE CLASS. Your statement is ludicrous.
Gilsch:
Wow. One word: Delusional. You read somehwhere? HAHAHAHHA. Stop...you're killing me.
We've been over this before SDW! Also when did you become the perfect typist or speller? I've always found that when people start using such things in their arguments they're are getting desparate. Also they leave themselves open to the same kind of comments.
About the " Lying ". Well when you've pretty well exausted all the other possibilities you have to go with the most likely conclusion. No there is no direct evidence that Bush lied. However most everybody here knows that's probably the case. That's 99.9999999999999% positive. Any other explaination is very hard to swallow.
Also the voters have these same facts and I'm sure they know also. It's just the ones that are in denial that......well you know.
People being uninformed has never been equated with stupidity in my mind. A stupid person is one who has the facts, considers them, and goes against what those facts suggest.
Inner cities need money. Where does the money come from? Suburbanites who often vote republican. So who is preventing the inner cities from obtaining money needed to improve the quality of life? The republicans... QED.
You're off base. Your analysis is predicated on the old Leftist line: "If only people were more informed, they would NEVER support Bush". It's a sort of self-reinforcing delusion for the Left. Those who disagree with you are stupid. How convenient.
People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage. They have valid viewpoints which you dismiss. Ironically, I'd argue it is the urban Left that is uninformed. Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?
On Bush, what is he? Is he a common fool, or elitist pretending to be one? You can't have it both ways.
Common fool who got to be president through a fluke of course. Look I'm all for patriotism but Bush is all for himself not america or the american people. That's clear from his actions.
Even the republicans are starting to realize he's a liability.
Information is important! Bush's policies just don't hold water. Let me say it again quite simply : Where's the WOMD? It's a simple question based on a decision Bush railroaded through the government, our allies, and the UN. It just wasn't true. And no they're not going to find them " just any day now " because they don't exist. We fought that war for NOTHING BUT BUSH'S AGENDA! And this is just one example.
From our local paper the Statesman Journal ( and yes this is the main headline ) I DO'S CONTINUE IN MULTNOMAH " Elizabeth Hepburn 72 and Susan Jones 57 have been together for 20 years without government approval "......well you get the idea. There have been a lot of gay marriages here in Oregon lately.
Republicans have always been for big government not interfering with the private sector. What the hell do you think Bush was proposing?
I think people don't like a president attempting to force his religious beliefs on them! Whether they are in line with their lifestyle choices or not.
I think it's you SDW that's rapidly becoming the dinosaur in american opinion.
1. We have been welcomed as liberators on the whole. The majority of the population is not lobbing grenades at us.
That's a pretty high bar you've set there. Where are the flowers? The parades? We were told that a grateful Iraqi population would welcome us with open arms. It hasn't happened yet. If you get the chance, take a look at the most recent Frontline documentary from last week on all of this. If anything, it made clear that the Iraqis don't quite know what to make of our presence there and are keeping a cautious distance.
Quote:
2. Supply Lines: That's a pretty specific issue. I've heard it as well....but isn't that more of a Pentagon management issue? It obviously didn't disrupt the invasion.
Sorry to bring up a specific issue. I could be more vague, if you'd like? How about charges that the troops are ill-equipped? Stories of families sending their children kevlar because the military isn't getting it for them? Stories of towns having fundraisers to raise army to equip their sons--and the admin's response that "that's a pretty good idea."? It was a widely reported story that Rumsfeld demanded a much leaner fighting force than the Pentagon wanted, and that when supply lines ran thin there was a scramble to get more troops there. "Rolling deployments," they called them. This was a fight between the ideologues in the admin and the folks in the Pentagon. So no, this wasn't a Pentagon management issue. Here. An IHT story from this week on the behind the scenes.
Quote:
3. Afghansistand: You'll have to elaborate. I'm not sure what, specifically, you;re talking about.
During the run-up to war, there were several interviews with soldiers in Afghanistan who complained about a) having been forgotten about (one soldier on interviewed on MSNBC said "We're still here, folks") and b) having been re-assigned for duty in Iraq. Now, certainly some of this is reasonable--special forces who were no longer needed in Afghanistan were sent to Iraq. But the fact remains that Bush invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taliban, and then turned his attention to Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was finished. And so now we're in the unenviable position of attempting to install two governments in two different countries with not enough troops to do the job.
Quote:
4. Post war: Again, what are you talking about? The post war plan was put into effect even before the war ended. Massive supply convoys entered the country. Infastructure is being rebuilt. A Coalition Authority was established. A provisional government by the end of this year. Yes, there are security problems. The picture you're painting is not accurate.
The post-war has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. We made a series of assumptions: that the Iraqi army could be repatriated and trained by us, that the police force would remain intact, that the infrastructure would be in better shape than it was, that we'd be able to install a government and constitution in time for Bush to attend a gala signing ceremony as an October surprise, that electricity and water would flow freely, and that the oil would be able to pay for it all. Are these getting better? Sure. We've been there for nearly a year now. I would hope they'd get better. But the misunderestimation of the role of the Iraqi army (which we allowed to simply walk off into the desert) and the police force (which vanished) has left US soldiers with the job of policing, which isn't what they're trained--or we're supposed--to do.
Quote:
5. I don't think Bush has said "it isn't my fault" on really anything. Overall the operation is going very well. We have some casualties, but even that number is extremely low. We took over an entire country and have lost 600 lives doing it. I don't mean to scoff at that loss of life, but in military terms, it's a very low number. Those that have visited Iraq say that the picture is very different from the one we see on the news every night. Your statements are predicated on the notion that the effort itself is going badly...and it's not
My statements aren't predicated on anything other than what I read, see, and hear. As for the "it's not my fault" argument, go read Josh Marshall's comments on the ads. I don't agree with every point, and nor does Atrios, who suggests that they also say "We'll get it right next time!"
The economy: "I inherited an economy at the beginning of a recession" = "It was Clinton's fault."
Iraq WMD: "We got bad intelligence" = "Tenet did it, not me."
9/11: "Evildoers who hate freedom did it" = "They're madmen! We couldn't possibly have seen it coming. How could it have been my fault?" = "Ignore the widely reported rumor that the exiting Clinton admin insisted that al Qaeda was on the verge of something, but our determination to focus on Iraq blinded us to it."
That's a pretty high bar you've set there. Where are the flowers? The parades? We were told that a grateful Iraqi population would welcome us with open arms. It hasn't happened yet. If you get the chance, take a look at the most recent Frontline documentary from last week on all of this. If anything, it made clear that the Iraqis don't quite know what to make of our presence there and are keeping a cautious distance.
Sorry to bring up a specific issue. I could be more vague, if you'd like? How about charges that the troops are ill-equipped? Stories of families sending their children kevlar because the military isn't getting it for them? Stories of towns having fundraisers to raise army to equip their sons--and the admin's response that "that's a pretty good idea."? It was a widely reported story that Rumsfeld demanded a much leaner fighting force than the Pentagon wanted, and that when supply lines ran thin there was a scramble to get more troops there. "Rolling deployments," they called them. This was a fight between the ideologues in the admin and the folks in the Pentagon. So no, this wasn't a Pentagon management issue. Here. An IHT story from this week on the behind the scenes.
During the run-up to war, there were several interviews with soldiers in Afghanistan who complained about a) having been forgotten about (one soldier on interviewed on MSNBC said "We're still here, folks") and b) having been re-assigned for duty in Iraq. Now, certainly some of this is reasonable--special forces who were no longer needed in Afghanistan were sent to Iraq. But the fact remains that Bush invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taliban, and then turned his attention to Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was finished. And so now we're in the unenviable position of attempting to install two governments in two different countries with not enough troops to do the job.
The post-war has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. We made a series of assumptions: that the Iraqi army could be repatriated and trained by us, that the police force would remain intact, that the infrastructure would be in better shape than it was, that we'd be able to install a government and constitution in time for Bush to attend a gala signing ceremony as an October surprise, that electricity and water would flow freely, and that the oil would be able to pay for it all. Are these getting better? Sure. We've been there for nearly a year now. I would hope they'd get better. But the misunderestimation of the role of the Iraqi army (which we allowed to simply walk off into the desert) and the police force (which vanished) has left US soldiers with the job of policing, which isn't what they're trained--or we're supposed--to do.
My statements aren't predicated on anything other than what I read, see, and hear. As for the "it's not my fault" argument, go read Josh Marshall's comments on the ads. I don't agree with every point, and nor does Atrios, who suggests that they also say "We'll get it right next time!"
The economy: "I inherited an economy at the beginning of a recession" = "It was Clinton's fault."
Iraq WMD: "We got bad intelligence" = "Tenet did it, not me."
9/11: "Evildoers who hate freedom did it" = "They're madmen! We couldn't possibly have seen it coming. How could it have been my fault?" = "Ignore the widely reported rumor that the exiting Clinton admin insisted that al Qaeda was on the verge of something, but our determination to focus on Iraq blinded us to it."
9/11 intelligence failures: "The FBI did it."
And on, and on.
You know it sounds like something a little kid would say if he got caught : " I didn't do anything wrong. Uh, it's timmy's fault! "
And this is our president? Pretty scary if you ask me.
People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage.
Patriotism is not nationalism. Flying the american flag is not in and of itself patriotic. Nationalism is what you see in the hinterlands. People who believe that the US is right regardless of its actions. People who in no way shape or form believe intuitively that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be universally applicable. What this nation represents or represented is something I am proud about, that is patriotism. Supporting what this nation does is not necessarily patriotic but is nationalistic.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, that is true with every president and legislator and mayor and just about any politician.
You guys act as if all of a sudden, what a president does effects the population, good or bad. If Kerry gets elected he will have the same effects on the American public. Good and Bad.
I am glad you guys were not around during WWII. The American Public sacrificed a whole lot, for little in return, except the knowledge that they were making the future better for future generations.
Sometimes the "in the long run" view is what you need when solving problems. Of course in this time of me first and screw everyone else that may not be possible. Wether you agree with the way it was done or not, you cannot say that the middle east does not have a whole new future.
The big picture.
Kerry will likely rule very similar to Bush, despite all of the hype right now, if he is elected.
I doubt it. In 50 years I haven't seen anyone else that blatantly insensitive to the welfare of the american people as a whole.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ummm...yes it is. If not, then why study history at all?
We study history to gain knowledge and perspective. Whether it tells anything about what happens in the future is indeterminant for most things. Heck, we even study history in an effort to not repeat certain events!
If it is such a predictor of politics, why did Bush even try to buck the "perceived" trends? Because the past does not indicate the future. It's not like these trends aren't a soft and mushy set of statistics with lots of exceptions in the first place.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Kerry will likely rule very similar to Bush, despite all of the hype right now, if he is elected.
Maybe. But hopefully Kerry won't have the extreme ideological fools Bush has, in his administration. The likes of Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al who were even consired too extreme by Bush sr's administration. In fact I read somewhere they were referred to as the "crazies" in the Republican circles.
Originally posted by tonton
The only way to reduce terrorism is through diplomacy. Bush doesn't support a policy of diplomacy. I would rather see our President do nothing than do what Bush has done, which is to instigate further terrorism through adversity.
I don't care what Kerry does to fight the WOT. It could NOT be any worse than what Bush has done. So am I supporting a "anyone but Bush" campaign? You betcha.
Likewise for the economy, taxes, education, health. No one could possibly do worse than Bush has done.
I am a Bush hater! Bash me? Fine. I know where I stand and I recognize the true measure of the "success" (or failure, as it stands) of the policies of the Bush administration.
"There's something rotten in the state of Denmark". And we know exactly who it is.
1. DIPLOMACY? You absolutely MUST be joking. One cannot negotiate with those who wish one's destruction. Terrorists and terror sponsoring states respect one thing, and that's raw power. The US is not at fault for the plight of the Middle East, from its corrupt and brutal dictatorships to its total ethnic and religous instability. We must hunt and kills terrorists and punish the states that sponsor them. What other way is there?
2. Economy: What did Bush do? Unemployment is low, the markets are up, GDP growth is strong and we're out of recession (which by the way was much milder than the last one). Job growth needs to improve...but the economy is quite sound. A disaster? No.
3. Education: The federal budget is up 40%. NCLBA, for all it's flaws, demands accountability for schools on everything from scores to attendance. Please explain what you see to be the problem. It sure as hell isn't money. We spend more on education per student than any other country in the world.
4. Healthcare: That's because an ultra-leftist like yourself believes we need nationalized heathcare for all Americans. It's not a right in this country. Period. Despite that, Bush signed a massive federal entitlement program for Medicare, providing prescription drug coverage. Call for tort reform and more government regualtion of insurance companies and maybe you'll have my attention.
5. Taxes: I got a tax decrease. Everyone did. Let me say that again..EVERYONE. Play all the class warfare games you want, but the rich pay the cast majority of taxes and when taxes are cut, they should get the most real-dollar benefit.
No one could do worse? I beg to differ.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Sounds like you like what he SAYS ("where he stands") a whole lot more than what he actually DOES.
Examples. Please, I'm waiting.
Originally posted by giant
That's exactly what I was going to say.
Hell, we already know with Iraq that Bush has MAJOR errors in his judgement.
How unbelieveably narrow minded. You only believe that because you oppose the action. What errors to you refer to?
giant:
What if I told you I agree more with the majority of ideas associated with the pubublican party than those of the democratic party?
You probably wouldn't believe me, because republicans are currently too lost to even look at their own party objectively and realize what's going on.
Well, number one I think that's untrue. But if it is, I'd ask you to realize that I for one have some serious criticisms of the party. For one, it's supporting too much spending...particularly with social spending. It's also supporting more big government by the day. That being said, the party only seems to be gaining popularity. In any case, the Democratic party is far, far worse shape....and has no particular agenda right now other than unseating Bush.
Originally posted by jimmac
Uh no. That would be prolonging the recession. Lieing to start a war. Cutting taxes to shut the public up and feed his rich friends. The net result is stellar deficit numbers. There's more if you want it?
Perhaps you mean "Lying" as opposed to "lieing". Either way, there is no...I repeat...NO evidence of that at all.
Prolonging a recession? How? What policies caused that? The recession lasted less than 18 months! As for "why" he cut taxes, can you again prove that? I'll give you the deficit....but I'll also remind you that Congress appropriates, not Bush.
I doubt it. In 50 years I haven't seen anyone else that blatantly insensitive to the welfare of the american people as a whole.
Somehow I don't think you were saying the same thing when Bill Clinton raised taxes BIGTIME on the MIDDLE CLASS. Your statement is ludicrous.
Gilsch:
Maybe. But hopefully Kerry won't have the extreme ideological fools Bush has, in his administration. The likes of Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al who were even consired too extreme by Bush sr's administration. In fact I read somewhere they were referred to as the "crazies" in the Republican circles.
Wow. One word: Delusional. You read somehwhere? HAHAHAHHA. Stop...you're killing me.
Originally posted by SDW2001
How unbelieveably narrow minded. You only believe that because you oppose the action. What errors to you refer to?
WMD? The Iraqis would welcome us as their liberators? Problems with the supply lines during the blitzkrieg? The hasty re-assignment of soldiers in Afghanistan? The post-war? The timetable for everything? The mobile labs?
And how has Bush responded to all of this? "It wasn't my fault." That's his answer to everything, it seems.
Well, number one I think that's untrue. But if it is, I'd ask you to realize that I for one have some serious criticisms of the party. For one, it's supporting too much spending...particularly with social spending. It's also supporting more big government by the day. That being said, the party only seems to be gaining popularity. In any case, the Democratic party is far, far worse shape....and has no particular agenda right now other than unseating Bush. [/B]
I actually agree with you on most of this. There is hope, though. The Dems desperately need a real foreign policy, which I would argue they've never actually had.
With that said, unseating Bush isn't exactly a weak agenda. They ain't trying to get you to switch votes, you know.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
WMD? The Iraqis would welcome us as their liberators? Problems with the supply lines during the blitzkrieg? The hasty re-assignment of soldiers in Afghanistan? The post-war? The timetable for everything? The mobile labs?
And how has Bush responded to all of this? "It wasn't my fault." That's his answer to everything, it seems.
I actually agree with you on most of this. There is hope, though. The Dems desperately need a real foreign policy, which I would argue they've never actually had.
With that said, unseating Bush isn't exactly a weak agenda. They ain't trying to get you to switch votes, you know.
Cheers
Scott
1. We have been welcomed as liberators on the whole. The majority of the population is not lobbing grenades at us.
2. Supply Lines: That's a pretty specific issue. I've heard it as well....but isn't that more of a Pentagon management issue? It obviously didn't disrupt the invasion.
3. Afghansistand: You'll have to elaborate. I'm not sure what, specifically, you;re talking about.
4. Post war: Again, what are you talking about? The post war plan was put into effect even before the war ended. Massive supply convoys entered the country. Infastructure is being rebuilt. A Coalition Authority was established. A provisional government by the end of this year. Yes, there are security problems. The picture you're painting is not accurate.
5. I don't think Bush has said "it isn't my fault" on really anything. Overall the operation is going very well. We have some casualties, but even that number is extremely low. We took over an entire country and have lost 600 lives doing it. I don't mean to scoff at that loss of life, but in military terms, it's a very low number. Those that have visited Iraq say that the picture is very different from the one we see on the news every night. Your statements are predicated on the notion that the effort itself is going badly...and it's not.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Perhaps you mean "Lying" as opposed to "lieing". Either way, there is no...I repeat...NO evidence of that at all.
THIS comes to mind right off hand . . . besides all of the other stuff that seems to force itself at the perirphery whish I am too tired, in my fevered ill state, to look for.
and as for that 'eletist' point and the rural vote . . . I said as much because I live in a rural environment and see what I see . . . but mainly because of the RED states and regions that voted for Bush are Rural . . . and if you followed my point that means ipso-facto- then they are refusing to be critical, insightful or intelligent
But seriously it is because he, who is NOT RURAL even though he comes from Texas, panders to the image of his folksy-goodness and that image is passed around out in these parts like it were-gospel . . .
all these rural folks who think that eurban people are pretentious while they are just 'dalt-of-the-earth' and the last thing in the world that they could be is superficial are in truly FOOLING themselves . . . . these people are as prone to falsity and self-delusion as anybody anywhere . . .
and a major means of their achieving that typical state of self-delusion (a problem that we are all prone to) is through propogating a FALSE image of "Honesty"
I think his bumbling ways are a big part of what makes him attractive to so many Americans. People are not intimidated by him. He is like every other dolt in the bar.
Originally posted by pfflam
THIS comes to mind right off hand . . . besides all of the other stuff that seems to force itself at the perirphery whish I am too tired, in my fevered ill state, to look for.
and as for that 'eletist' point and the rural vote . . . I said as much because I live in a rural environment and see what I see . . . but mainly because of the RED states and regions that voted for Bush are Rural . . . and if you followed my point that means ipso-facto- then they are refusing to be critical, insightful or intelligent
But seriously it is because he, who is NOT RURAL even though he comes from Texas, panders to the image of his folksy-goodness and that image is passed around out in these parts like it were-gospel . . .
all these rural folks who think that eurban people are pretentious while they are just 'dalt-of-the-earth' and the last thing in the world that they could be is superficial are in truly FOOLING themselves . . . . these people are as prone to falsity and self-delusion as anybody anywhere . . .
and a major means of their achieving that typical state of self-delusion (a problem that we are all prone to) is through propogating a FALSE image of "Honesty"
You're off base. Your analysis is predicated on the old Leftist line: "If only people were more informed, they would NEVER support Bush". It's a sort of self-reinforcing delusion for the Left. Those who disagree with you are stupid. How convenient.
People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage. They have valid viewpoints which you dismiss. Ironically, I'd argue it is the urban Left that is uninformed. Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?
On Bush, what is he? Is he a common fool, or elitist pretending to be one? You can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Perhaps you mean "Lying" as opposed to "lieing". Either way, there is no...I repeat...NO evidence of that at all.
Prolonging a recession? How? What policies caused that? The recession lasted less than 18 months! As for "why" he cut taxes, can you again prove that? I'll give you the deficit....but I'll also remind you that Congress appropriates, not Bush.
Somehow I don't think you were saying the same thing when Bill Clinton raised taxes BIGTIME on the MIDDLE CLASS. Your statement is ludicrous.
Gilsch:
Wow. One word: Delusional. You read somehwhere? HAHAHAHHA. Stop...you're killing me.
We've been over this before SDW! Also when did you become the perfect typist or speller? I've always found that when people start using such things in their arguments they're are getting desparate. Also they leave themselves open to the same kind of comments.
About the " Lying ". Well when you've pretty well exausted all the other possibilities you have to go with the most likely conclusion. No there is no direct evidence that Bush lied. However most everybody here knows that's probably the case. That's 99.9999999999999% positive. Any other explaination is very hard to swallow.
Also the voters have these same facts and I'm sure they know also. It's just the ones that are in denial that......well you know.
Inner cities need money. Where does the money come from? Suburbanites who often vote republican. So who is preventing the inner cities from obtaining money needed to improve the quality of life? The republicans... QED.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're off base. Your analysis is predicated on the old Leftist line: "If only people were more informed, they would NEVER support Bush". It's a sort of self-reinforcing delusion for the Left. Those who disagree with you are stupid. How convenient.
People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage. They have valid viewpoints which you dismiss. Ironically, I'd argue it is the urban Left that is uninformed. Look at our inner cities. They've been voting Democratic for 40 years. What's changed? Why do they continue to support a party that takes their demographic for granted and produces no results?
On Bush, what is he? Is he a common fool, or elitist pretending to be one? You can't have it both ways.
Common fool who got to be president through a fluke of course. Look I'm all for patriotism but Bush is all for himself not america or the american people. That's clear from his actions.
Even the republicans are starting to realize he's a liability.
Information is important! Bush's policies just don't hold water. Let me say it again quite simply : Where's the WOMD? It's a simple question based on a decision Bush railroaded through the government, our allies, and the UN. It just wasn't true. And no they're not going to find them " just any day now " because they don't exist. We fought that war for NOTHING BUT BUSH'S AGENDA! And this is just one example.
From our local paper the Statesman Journal ( and yes this is the main headline ) I DO'S CONTINUE IN MULTNOMAH " Elizabeth Hepburn 72 and Susan Jones 57 have been together for 20 years without government approval "......well you get the idea. There have been a lot of gay marriages here in Oregon lately.
Republicans have always been for big government not interfering with the private sector. What the hell do you think Bush was proposing?
I think people don't like a president attempting to force his religious beliefs on them! Whether they are in line with their lifestyle choices or not.
I think it's you SDW that's rapidly becoming the dinosaur in american opinion.
1. We have been welcomed as liberators on the whole. The majority of the population is not lobbing grenades at us.
That's a pretty high bar you've set there. Where are the flowers? The parades? We were told that a grateful Iraqi population would welcome us with open arms. It hasn't happened yet. If you get the chance, take a look at the most recent Frontline documentary from last week on all of this. If anything, it made clear that the Iraqis don't quite know what to make of our presence there and are keeping a cautious distance.
2. Supply Lines: That's a pretty specific issue. I've heard it as well....but isn't that more of a Pentagon management issue? It obviously didn't disrupt the invasion.
Sorry to bring up a specific issue. I could be more vague, if you'd like? How about charges that the troops are ill-equipped? Stories of families sending their children kevlar because the military isn't getting it for them? Stories of towns having fundraisers to raise army to equip their sons--and the admin's response that "that's a pretty good idea."? It was a widely reported story that Rumsfeld demanded a much leaner fighting force than the Pentagon wanted, and that when supply lines ran thin there was a scramble to get more troops there. "Rolling deployments," they called them. This was a fight between the ideologues in the admin and the folks in the Pentagon. So no, this wasn't a Pentagon management issue. Here. An IHT story from this week on the behind the scenes.
3. Afghansistand: You'll have to elaborate. I'm not sure what, specifically, you;re talking about.
During the run-up to war, there were several interviews with soldiers in Afghanistan who complained about a) having been forgotten about (one soldier on interviewed on MSNBC said "We're still here, folks") and b) having been re-assigned for duty in Iraq. Now, certainly some of this is reasonable--special forces who were no longer needed in Afghanistan were sent to Iraq. But the fact remains that Bush invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taliban, and then turned his attention to Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was finished. And so now we're in the unenviable position of attempting to install two governments in two different countries with not enough troops to do the job.
4. Post war: Again, what are you talking about? The post war plan was put into effect even before the war ended. Massive supply convoys entered the country. Infastructure is being rebuilt. A Coalition Authority was established. A provisional government by the end of this year. Yes, there are security problems. The picture you're painting is not accurate.
The post-war has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. We made a series of assumptions: that the Iraqi army could be repatriated and trained by us, that the police force would remain intact, that the infrastructure would be in better shape than it was, that we'd be able to install a government and constitution in time for Bush to attend a gala signing ceremony as an October surprise, that electricity and water would flow freely, and that the oil would be able to pay for it all. Are these getting better? Sure. We've been there for nearly a year now. I would hope they'd get better. But the misunderestimation of the role of the Iraqi army (which we allowed to simply walk off into the desert) and the police force (which vanished) has left US soldiers with the job of policing, which isn't what they're trained--or we're supposed--to do.
5. I don't think Bush has said "it isn't my fault" on really anything. Overall the operation is going very well. We have some casualties, but even that number is extremely low. We took over an entire country and have lost 600 lives doing it. I don't mean to scoff at that loss of life, but in military terms, it's a very low number. Those that have visited Iraq say that the picture is very different from the one we see on the news every night. Your statements are predicated on the notion that the effort itself is going badly...and it's not
My statements aren't predicated on anything other than what I read, see, and hear. As for the "it's not my fault" argument, go read Josh Marshall's comments on the ads. I don't agree with every point, and nor does Atrios, who suggests that they also say "We'll get it right next time!"
The economy: "I inherited an economy at the beginning of a recession" = "It was Clinton's fault."
Iraq WMD: "We got bad intelligence" = "Tenet did it, not me."
9/11: "Evildoers who hate freedom did it" = "They're madmen! We couldn't possibly have seen it coming. How could it have been my fault?" = "Ignore the widely reported rumor that the exiting Clinton admin insisted that al Qaeda was on the verge of something, but our determination to focus on Iraq blinded us to it."
9/11 intelligence failures: "The FBI did it."
And on, and on.
Originally posted by midwinter
That's a pretty high bar you've set there. Where are the flowers? The parades? We were told that a grateful Iraqi population would welcome us with open arms. It hasn't happened yet. If you get the chance, take a look at the most recent Frontline documentary from last week on all of this. If anything, it made clear that the Iraqis don't quite know what to make of our presence there and are keeping a cautious distance.
Sorry to bring up a specific issue. I could be more vague, if you'd like? How about charges that the troops are ill-equipped? Stories of families sending their children kevlar because the military isn't getting it for them? Stories of towns having fundraisers to raise army to equip their sons--and the admin's response that "that's a pretty good idea."? It was a widely reported story that Rumsfeld demanded a much leaner fighting force than the Pentagon wanted, and that when supply lines ran thin there was a scramble to get more troops there. "Rolling deployments," they called them. This was a fight between the ideologues in the admin and the folks in the Pentagon. So no, this wasn't a Pentagon management issue. Here. An IHT story from this week on the behind the scenes.
During the run-up to war, there were several interviews with soldiers in Afghanistan who complained about a) having been forgotten about (one soldier on interviewed on MSNBC said "We're still here, folks") and b) having been re-assigned for duty in Iraq. Now, certainly some of this is reasonable--special forces who were no longer needed in Afghanistan were sent to Iraq. But the fact remains that Bush invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taliban, and then turned his attention to Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was finished. And so now we're in the unenviable position of attempting to install two governments in two different countries with not enough troops to do the job.
The post-war has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. We made a series of assumptions: that the Iraqi army could be repatriated and trained by us, that the police force would remain intact, that the infrastructure would be in better shape than it was, that we'd be able to install a government and constitution in time for Bush to attend a gala signing ceremony as an October surprise, that electricity and water would flow freely, and that the oil would be able to pay for it all. Are these getting better? Sure. We've been there for nearly a year now. I would hope they'd get better. But the misunderestimation of the role of the Iraqi army (which we allowed to simply walk off into the desert) and the police force (which vanished) has left US soldiers with the job of policing, which isn't what they're trained--or we're supposed--to do.
My statements aren't predicated on anything other than what I read, see, and hear. As for the "it's not my fault" argument, go read Josh Marshall's comments on the ads. I don't agree with every point, and nor does Atrios, who suggests that they also say "We'll get it right next time!"
The economy: "I inherited an economy at the beginning of a recession" = "It was Clinton's fault."
Iraq WMD: "We got bad intelligence" = "Tenet did it, not me."
9/11: "Evildoers who hate freedom did it" = "They're madmen! We couldn't possibly have seen it coming. How could it have been my fault?" = "Ignore the widely reported rumor that the exiting Clinton admin insisted that al Qaeda was on the verge of something, but our determination to focus on Iraq blinded us to it."
9/11 intelligence failures: "The FBI did it."
And on, and on.
You know it sounds like something a little kid would say if he got caught : " I didn't do anything wrong. Uh, it's timmy's fault! "
And this is our president? Pretty scary if you ask me.
Originally posted by SDW2001
People in the red states think differently...all 50 million of them. They don't think that Patriotism is stupid. They fly the American flag. They go to church. They support a strong military. They believe in right and wrong. They oppose gay marriage.
Patriotism is not nationalism. Flying the american flag is not in and of itself patriotic. Nationalism is what you see in the hinterlands. People who believe that the US is right regardless of its actions. People who in no way shape or form believe intuitively that the freedoms granted in the constitution should be universally applicable. What this nation represents or represented is something I am proud about, that is patriotism. Supporting what this nation does is not necessarily patriotic but is nationalistic.