Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Senator's Comments Draw Fire

John Kerry Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#61 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:09 AM

Lover of Purple, on Apr 4 2003, 05:21 PM, said:

Kosh, on Apr 4 2003, 01:28 PM, said:

Contrary to what Drew, G1223 and the rest of the conservitives think, most of the country doesn't want hard core conservitives for President, but the Democrats don't have a really intelligent candidate.









:o  < "He said WHAT????
When did I say I wanted a hard core conservative for president? President Bush is NOT one and I like him. We also don't want a hard core Liberal either. I do't know any Conservatives that want a hard core in office. Maybe I don't know the conservatives you do, Kosh. I do resent your comment though, I don't pidgeonhole liberals and I'll ask you to not pidgeonhole my fellow conservatives or me. Thank you. :)
Sorry Dude, should have said most , not all. I've been around to many hard core people at work.
Can't Touch This!!

#62 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:16 AM

Quote

Kerry's Military service is why I supported him. But maybe he needs a refresher of what the folks he's slamming look like they will remember him in the polls


Apologies to you to G.
Can't Touch This!!

#63 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:24 AM

Uncle Sid, on Apr 4 2003, 08:53 PM, said:

As far as the original question goes, about Sen. Kerry, I really do have to point out that while Kerry's comment was obviously just mistimed (probably) and didn't mean to undermine the President in war time (probably), one can argue that ol' Trent Lott's comment at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond also didn't at all mean he wanted segregation back.  Anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds knows that Lott's comment was simply a recognition that Thurmond was a guy who ran for President with some conservative ideas about a lot of things other than segregation.  He just pulled a bonehead and assumed that since most people had forgiven Thrumond for his retracted segregation views, that people wouldn't immediately resurrect the spectre of the Dixiecrats' most visible campaign plank.

Well, at the risk of being called a liberal apologist, Lott's problem was about a lot more than just that one comment.  Part of it was his own record, including his actions to exclude blacks from his college fraternity and a not very encouraging voting record on issues that matter to minority voters.

His blank look when called on the comment only cemented the feeling that he really doesn't get what black voters are looking for. As the Senate Majority Leader, that was a crippling issue, because of the control that post intends to have over legislative issues.

Note, he didn't lose his Senate seat, his peers in the party decided he was a political liability.

Quote

Yet, like in Kerry's case, people jump to the conclusion that he meant the worst possible thing, when in reality calling Lott on those comments is like saying that anyone who admires Thomas Jefferson must be racist because Jefferson was a slaveowner who didn't part with his slaves until he died.  Both Thurmond and Jefferson certainly ended up regretting their positions in their lifetimes. 

Well, not exactly.

The comment was the cherry on top of the sundae, but it was hardly a one time gaffe. The furor was about what LOTT did and said over a lot of years. Thurmond was the innocent bystander in this debacle.

Ro

#64 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:28 AM

Ro-Astarte, on Apr 4 2003, 04:33 PM, said:

G1223, on Apr 4 2003, 03:10 PM, said:


Banapis interesting position. Then Trent Lott should not have been run over the coals  for is statement about Strum Thurman at the party.  But for some reason (Maybe becasue Lott was a Republican) it did happen so what's sause for the goose is not sause for the gander? Or becasue it's a Democrat we need new special rules for them?
Becasue that is how it sounds from here.
Trent Lott suggested that if Strom Thurmond had won his segregationist campaign for President that we'd all be better off today.

John Kerry said he feels American needs "regime" change because he doesn't agree with the President's approach to foreign policy.

The two are in NO WAY equivalent. It has nothing to do with political parties.

Ro
To me it looks like Kerry is comparing Bush and Sadam. I don't like Bush, as the old saying goes, I wouldn't pee on him if his heart were on fire, but he is nothing like Sadam.
The two statements are equally ridiculas





Quote

LOP said
President Bush is NOT one and I like him

Bush is the symble for hard core conservetives, of coarse he's one. This is the same guy that forced the Homeland Security bill through without time for people to really get a look at it. This is the same president who is currently wiping Eviroment regulations off the books, setting us back 25 years. This is the same guy who is promising a tax cut with one side of his mouth, and asking Congress for 74+ million dollars to fight a war with the other side. That is hard core.
Can't Touch This!!

#65 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:31 AM

Banapis, on Apr 4 2003, 06:12 PM, said:

Kosh, on Apr 4 2003, 09:44 PM, said:

They are equivalent in tyhat they were the wrong thing to say in front of other people. Reporters love this kind of stuff, and they will beat him into the ground with it, even if it isn't as bad as Lotts gaffe.

Unfortunately, that’s one of the big problems with running a campaign in the system we’ve created, and is a big part of the so-called “incumbency advantage.”

It’s also hard for people like Kerry to avoid.  Non-incumbents, before they can even run for office, first need to woo the support of their party.  Since party activists and those who vote in party primaries tend to encompass the more “hardcore” elements of the party, the person seeking nomination has to say things that while appealing to those types, are not nearly as appealing to the country as a whole.  This cycle repeats itself every campaign:  nominee one says something a little right/left of center and earns points with primary voters, nominee two needs to respond so he says something more right/left and voters gravitate to him, nominee one fires back by saying something even more right/left, and so on.  As the Fox article reports, Dean is making inroads and cutting away Kerry’s lead among primary voters. This was apparently part of Kerry’s attempt to trump Dean and win back those votes.  A sort-of damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.  Certainly, Clinton was extremely adept at deftly sidestepping his way around these kinds of things.

That’s also the reason why once the actual presidential campaign commences the two candidates immediately sound more *much*moderate since now their campaigning to a country as a whole.  In incumbent situations, like we’ll see in 2004, Bush has the nomination locked up so he won’t have to say anything extreme that might turn Americans off in order to appease hardcore republicans.  Meanwhile, the democratic challenger will have everything he said in the primary campaign used against him to make him seem radical and out of touch.

Quote

Bush does scare me. The whole Homeland Security issue is something that I'm going to get deep into as time permits. I have a copy.

What do you think of Bush’s “Total Information Awareness” project?  They’re going to amass personal info about all Americans into their “grand database,” including having computers scour the internet, and then have the machine pigeonhole all of us into some “profile” to determine if we represent a threat to homeland security???

Just look at the TiVo profiling fiasco!  Having a computer determining from the viewing preferences of perfectly heterosexual males that they fit the “gay profile” and offering them gay programming info!  Egads, now people will get erroneously labeled terrorists by some machine.

*shakes his head*

Banapis
Big Brother coming to a country near you.

Next up, cameras everywhere, like London.
Can't Touch This!!

#66 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:34 AM

Drew, my apologies. I'd like to argue the point with you, but I haven't slpept much in the last week.  I need to stop.






I'm making spelling mistakes that I normaly don't make. OK so maybe I do, but they are getting worse tonight. I'm naming people wheh I shouldn't be, wrongly , so good night.










:upside:   < My brain on Ex Isle
Can't Touch This!!

#67 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:41 AM

Quote

Hawk: Bush may not be my favourite guy but he certainly surrounded himself with competent folks.

Bush like Reagan is a delegator in terms of his management and leadership style.  He just tells his staff what he wants done, they argue amongst themselves telling him details, and then present plans to him.  Then he picks the best plan out of the ones the staff presents.  In terms of staff he picked the best one out there; I doubt the democrats could select a team that could match up.  Just trying to find someone as qualified as Powell for Sec State is a task that would induce mass confusion.

Now mentioning Clinton since you did; Clinton was not a delegator on any level.  He seemed to be the type that would use his staff but in a lesser role as only input.  I’ve always been of the opinion that a delegative role will tend to be out the single leader simply by bringing more expertise and knowledge to bear.  I always saw Gore as Clinton’s less savvy, knowledgeable, and charismatic sidekick.  I might think Clinton was slime, scum, and disagree with most of what he did, but the guy was slick at it.  So I’ll take a mediocre guy with excellent staff he listens to over the mediocre guy who tries to go it alone any day.              

Quote

Hawk: (Agree on Ashcroft, too.)

I don’t trust Ashcroft one bit but then I didn’t trust Reno one bit either.  The only different is one was an authoritarian from the left and the other from the right.  The problem is picking a good attorney general is to say the least a tough job.  You need someone who is aggressive otherwise they’ll get walked all over but on the other hand you have to find someone who doesn’t shred the Constitution.  Though that is why we have the judiciary and very importantly the Supreme Court.  
  

Quote

Hawk: I have to admit, the prospect of a Powell White House....

I can’t think of anyone liberal or conservative that could standup to Powell in a run for the presidency.  The guy is largely adored by the public, classic American story behind him, wary warrior, and smart. If he ever gets it in his mind to run he’ll easily take it.  I’d pay good money to see him stomp my Jr. Senator Clinton into a fine paste.  I’d say though the real wild card for the Republican Party is Rice and the ace is Powell.  Tough hand for anyone to stand up and beat.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#68 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:51 AM

Kosh, on Apr 5 2003, 03:17 AM, said:

This is the same guy who is promising a tax cut with one side of his mouth, and asking Congress for 74+ million dollars to fight a war with the other side.
I wish it was $74.7 million, that'd be a deal!  ;)

And remember that $74.7 billion was characterized as a "down payment" by the White House.  Not to mention, Bush fired Chief Economic Advisior Lawrence Lindsey shortly after he said the total cost of the war could be $200 billion and many have since speculated his willingness to put a price tag on the war was a significant factor in his dismissal.

And even before the war broke out the U.S was headed for the largest budget deficit in American history ($300 billion).  Edited because I screwed up the numbers: Bush's proposed tax cut is actually $695 billion which is even more irresponsible considering the deficit.

Banapis

Edited by Banapis, 05 April 2003 - 06:59 AM.


#69 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:52 AM

Thanks Kosh!! Just shows you are a class act!!

LoP

#70 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:02 AM

Banapis, on Apr 4 2003, 10:40 PM, said:

Kosh, on Apr 5 2003, 03:17 AM, said:

This is the same guy who is promising a tax cut with one side of his mouth, and asking Congress for 74+ million dollars to fight a war with the other side.
I wish it was $74.7 million, that'd be a deal!  ;)

And remember that $74.7 billion was characterized as a "down payment" by the White House.  Not to mention, Bush fired Chief Economic Advisior Lawrence Lindsey shortly after he said the total cost of the war could be $200 billion and many have since speculated his willingness to put a price tag on the war was a significant factor in his dismissal.

And even before the war broke out the U.S was headed for the largest budget deficit in American history ($300 billion).  I suppose the thinking must be when you're talking about such a ridiculously huge number as a $374.7 billion deficit, what does another $700 million (the tax cut) matter?  :blink:

Banapis
74.7 for thirty days I believe. They might just take it in less, but we'll be there for some time to come. And we will be pumping money into Iraq. Not all bad, we help people, and some of the money comes back in things they buy from the USA, or will buy in this case.






I would vote for Powell over anyone else who is running these days, but he will never run.





:suspect:  < "By your command"
Can't Touch This!!

#71 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:08 AM

Kosh, on Apr 5 2003, 03:51 AM, said:

And we will be pumping money into Iraq. Not all bad, we help people, and some of the money comes back in things they buy from the USA, or will buy in this case.
That's a good point and I hope it's the case.  I will be very unhappy if significant contracts for rebuilding Iraq go to France and Germany.  

Banapis

#72 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:08 AM

Quote

His blank look when called on the comment only cemented the feeling that he really doesn't get what black voters are looking for. As the Senate Majority Leader, that was a crippling issue, because of the control that post intends to have over legislative issues.

Note, he didn't lose his Senate seat, his peers in the party decided he was a political liability.

Well, the question isn't why they removed Lott, it's why it got to the point that they removed him.  The comment got reported and people used it to "connect the dots".  Now, who do you think did the connecting of aforementioned dots?   The fact is that someone was looking for a way to connect those dots about Trent Lott without having to appeal to things no one really looks at like voting records and things that don't matter like what you said or did in college thirty years ago.  As you recall, there was a slight delay between the comments and the uproar.  That delay represented a few people picking up on the comment and having their staffers do a little bit of research in order to see how they could use it to their best advantage.  No one carries around encyclopedic information about voting records or pasts in their heads for them to immediately become offended at the time.  Certainly the general public would know nothing about his voting record or college career, or he would have never made it to being majority leader.  So, what we have here is a well-choreographed move to remove him from his position, not some spontaneous "public" outpouring of offense.  

Now I'm not saying this was a conspiracy or anything, it's just a standard thing that happens in Washington.  It's like breathing to the politicos.  Some one says something and people pick up on it and try to use it their best advantage.  I don't even necessarily think that it came up at a meeting.  Someone probably just said to their staffers, "that sounds bad, put together some comments for me on the Lott thing" and suddenly dance of the congressional staffers begins.  The spin machine gets fed more information, and the output is a set of nice poilshed comments make it to sympathetic media outlets who are trusted for their news everyday by millions.  And this isn't necessarily just the Dems either.  Certainly people like McCain, Bill Frist and the White House may have made some moves in there.  It's very interesting how the now-Majority Leader Sen. Frist seems to be everywhere saving people with his medical skills in the Capitol and in Florida and it makes it to the news.  It's also interesting how well Frist and President Bush get along together and how the White House was lukewarm in its support for Lott after those comments.  

In any event, the point with Lott and Kerry is not what they said or even what it means, but how it gets to the news and what meaning gets attached to it for us.  The fact is that Trent Lott may be taking a principled stand against certain affirmative action policies with his voting record, which is a Republican thing to do.  I don't like the corrosive effects of Affrimative Action myself, for instance.  However, somehow a comment attached to his voting record "just so" now associates him with segregationism, as opposed to simply a disagreement about the means of removing discrimination.  At the same time, "regime change" probably used to be a good buzz-phrase for encapsulating Kerry's opposition to unilateralist foreign policy of the Bush Administration, but now its a sin.  The problem is that Kerry (or his staffers) screwed up and didn't realize that America is now de-facto for regime change simply because we are supporting the troops who are doing that.  The winds shifted and a tiny comment is now turned against him.

Now I'm not saying that Kerry or Lott didn't say stupid things.  They did.  Lott's comment and Kerry's comment are equally ridiculous, like Kosh said.  The comments were stupid for different reasons, but both were simple mistakes that probably don't represent either person properly but have nevertheless been taken and run with by political people and their media machines.  Let's face it, Lott wasn't removed for his voting record, and Kerry isn't taking heat now because of his true beliefs, they took heat because someone took advantage of their comments and turned them into issues.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#73 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:19 AM

^^^
I think that's exactly right, Sid.  In fact, in the early days of the Lott scandal his colleague Daschle actually defended him, while the heaviest fire came from segments of the Republican Party that either had it out for him for personal reasons or saw a good opportunity to make a public break with their Party's past opposition to the Civil Rights movement and continuing connection with unsavory elements like the Conservative Citizens' Council and other holdovers from the Old South.  

And with Bush and Rove and company wanting to make a renewed appeal to minority voters, Lott as the sacrificial lamb became inevitable...

Zack
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#74 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:22 AM

RPITA, on Apr 4 2003, 12:04 PM, said:

Methinks he can kiss his Presidential bid goodbye. But we'll see how silly the "Democratic Presidential Food Fight" ™ gets before making final judgement. In the meantime, it's good sport. :p
I believe he lost his chances when they found out he had cancer.
I may be wrong, but in the past it would have killed his chances and I doubt things have changed that much, or that they should.

#75 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:34 AM

Banapis, on Apr 4 2003, 10:57 PM, said:

Kosh, on Apr 5 2003, 03:51 AM, said:

And we will be pumping money into Iraq. Not all bad, we help people, and some of the money comes back in things they buy from the USA, or will buy in this case.
That's a good point and I hope it's the case.  I will be very unhappy if significant contracts for rebuilding Iraq go to France and Germany.  

Banapis
None of them should go to France, Germany or Russia.

Quite frankly, at this point I say pull any aid we're giving them. If we are just so evil, and they are so intent on stabbing us in the back, they can survive on their own.

I think decades of trying to make them feel like equal partners have gone to their heads and the actually believe it now. We've treated them with kid gloves and I say it's time we stop.

Adding what I forgot: we get to use all that money for Iraq and here at home.

Edited by StarDust, 05 April 2003 - 07:40 AM.


#76 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:44 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 4 2003, 04:19 PM, said:

The suggestion that some kind of special circumstance warrants the squashing of free speech is one that disturbs me and that is precisely what I took away from the Speaker's response to Kerry.
Sqaushing free speech, and facing consequences for it, as we do for all our actions, are two different things.

Everyone is free to say what they want (within certain legal rules) and everyone else is free to decide they don't like it, and decide their actions based on that fact.

#77 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 08:09 AM

I disagree, passionately and even violently, with a lot of what I'm reading here, but I don't want to bring negativity to the conversation, so I'm giong to make a few (hopefully) calm remarks.

#1 - The "liberal media" is a myth. Any objective view of the current media exposes this.  The national media is, one and all, owned by large corporate conglomerates and, as such, the owners and those in control of hiring and firing are very, very interested in staying in good with the corporation-friendly Republican party.

Take a look at the most well-known national media outlets.

The Wall Street Journal? Hardly a bastion of liberality.  And their "OpinionJournal" is blatantly partisan. Not to mention their occasional outright lying, they make no bones about being 150% behind Bush. In fact one of their "columnists," a woman whose writing me the hives, Peggy Noonan, can practically be heard drooling with every column she writes about Bush. (The one I've linked to makes the oddly uneven and unconvincing State of the Union speech sound like...well, let's just say I think she probably smoked a cigarette afterward, okay?) Here's an excerpt:

Quote

The theme held both halves of the speech together, and so they cohered and supported each other. The two halves were defined, too, by a change of tone or demeanor on the president's part that you couldn't quite put your finger on. In the first, domestic part of the speech he was serious and contained, but in the second part of the speech, on Iraq, there was a shift. His voice seemed lower and there seemed a kind of full head-heart engagement in his grave but optimistic message. For a moment I though of earnest Clark Kent moving, at the moment of maximum danger, to shed his suit, tear open his shirt and reveal the big "S" on his chest.

The entire column is full of reverent Bush-worship and lacks even a pretence of an "editorial opinion" on the content of the speech.  Most of her columns are full of reverent Bush-worship, in fact. She's a bit obsessed.  She wrote a little story once, where the UsofA liberated Iraq with one hand while bringing bin Laden to justice with the other and at the end Bush stood virtually illuminated by the halo of Christian Destiny. It was disgusting, and no less so because it was published as a "serious" Op-Ed column in a journal that unfortunately bears a respected name.

You will search in vain for a liberal, or even a moderate voice amongst the OpinionJournal's columnists. Noonan writes the purplest prose but every columnist on the staff is an ardent right-winger.

The Washington Times is, as we all know, owned by Rev. Moon (whose ties to the Bush family are reasonably well-known) and is unashamedly right-wing.

The Washington Post, once a fairly liberal publication, is now no better than middle of the road (even with the inestimable E. J. Dionne Jr. in the Op-Ed section).

Ditto for the NYTimes although they do employ Maureen Dowd, a notable and noted liberal. Paul Krugman, a highly respected columnist claims to be liberal and I don't hold it against him (really) that he likes nothing better than bashing liberals.

Although I'm willing to concede that on most matters both organs stand left of center, their wholehearted backing of a war we were lied and bullied into starting makes them, in my eyes, suspect, and in any case I don't consider "left of center" to be particularly biased when compared to something like the OpinionJournal.

The closest thing to a "columnist" that CNN has is the outrageously right-wing Wolf Blitzer.

Liberal media? If you take a detailed look at the coverage of the 2000 presidential campaign, a real look, you'll find something odd.  Allegation after allegation of dishonesty, lying, shiftiness, and deceit is thrown at Gore.  In the end, each of these allegations turns out to be smoke and mirrors. They accuse him of changing his position when he doesn't. He's misquoted constantly. The press fixates on his wardrobe and mocks his color choices instead of covering issues. And, in the end, none of the accusations they throw at him is proven.  Many simply disappear in journalistic embarassment, but most are supersceded by ever-more outrageous articles, few of which ever cover what he's actually saying to voters as he travels around the country. (In spite of this almost universal bias in coverage, I'm proud of the USofA that Gore got the most votes anyhow. Goes to show that not everyone takes the media at its own valuation. It also goes to show that "four more years" of Clinton's kind of economy and foreign policy were more acceptable to more voters than four years of whatever it was Bush seemed to be offering.)

You will find no, no coverage of Bush of that nature. None of his shady business dealings before he became Governor of Texas. Nothing about his policies or actions while in office, or the disastrous results of the same.  Nothing.

#2 - I am among those who considered (and still consider) Reagan's so-called economics to be "voodoo economics." The absurdity of pretending that giving more money to corporations and rich people enriches the lower classes gives me cognitive dissonance.

While gratefully accepting government handouts with one hand, corporations used the other to make calls to fire "expensive" USofA workers so that factories and jobs could be moved to underdeveloped nations and the same work could be completed for pennies a day.  (NAFTA* really intensified this problem. I'm not a big fan of NAFTA*, and yes, I know who signed the treaty.)

Remaining workers in USofA offices are doing the work of two or three people and being assured that they're just wonderful for accepting a 2% raise each year to "help out" the coporation that's paying its CEO %45 to $135 million dollars a year in salary and benefits.

The only thing that "trickled" down was unemployment. The rich, a little research will show you, got a lot richer, and the poor got poorer.

I find it manifestly absurd that someone would claim that the 8 years of Clinton's Presidency was "coasting" on previous achievements, but I'll let that pass. This is already too long.  I just want to make it clear that I blame no one, neither Clinton nor Bush II, for the disasters of the internet bubble nor the economic impact of 9/11.  

However. The initial round of tax cuts that were approved with certain reservations (the ones that started the job of dissipating the goverment's surplus funds) did nothing to "jump-start" the economy. Nor did the "little people" get very much of them.  Most of the money went to the wealthy. The current round of proposed tax cuts (the figure the White House is asking for is $726B over, I believe, ten years) is causing huge arguments in Congress.

The Senate has offered a tentative "compromise" of $350B over the same time period and many are saying even that's too much since the war-related $74B is, in fact, only a "down payment." Billions more will be needed and where on earth does the Administratio think the money is coming from?  Aid and assistance programs for the poor and for children are already being slashed all over the country.  Veterans benefits are taking a hit, which will be a very nice gift for the soldiers when they get home, don't you think?

#3 Bush is a right-wing conservative. He is in no sense moderate.  Check his appointments if you doubt it. He is, as previously mentioned, using what time he can spare from his daily exercise and video game routine to dismantle environment protections this country spent 25 years putting into place.

He is, in my opinion, unfit for the office he was awarded. What was originally lauded as his "hands off" mangement style, coupled with his own admission that he doesn't read much and hates reading White House briefings most of all, added to the news that while Bush was exercising and getting his full 8 hours of shut-eye, Cheney was working late into every night tells me who was really running the government.  

Even as the war started, his staff made no secret of the fact that Bush practically ignored the whole thing. It's only been recently, as the heat has been turned up on the Administration, that they're trying to portray him as a constantly informed and decision-making leader.  All of a sudden, instead of a 'hands off' manager, we're supposed to believe he's some steely-eyed, determined Great Leader?  Don't make me laugh.

Or, better yet, do some real research.  There's a book called "Shrub" written by Milly Ivins and Lou Dubose. Yes, they're liberals, but they're Texas liberals and they know whereof they speak, having lived in the state while Bush was governor.  

And they weren't writing about George Bush, President, okay? They published this book in 2000, before the election, and it's about Bush's policies while Governor of Texas.

They make no secret of their disbelief in Bush's ability to win the election, so they're not dissing him in advance or anything. They're just writing the truth - all of the stories that a truly "free" and unbiased national press would have brought up during the campaign. They were frustrated that the national press wasn't covering these things, so they wrote a book.

I'll give you a shortcut.  He pressed for "faith-based initiatives" instead of government aid programs. He dismantled environmental protections. He passed tax legislation in favor of corporations. He slashed aid programs.  The same economic approach, in other words, that he's using on the USofA.  Go ahead. Read the book and find out what the result in Texas was.  (If you think the results will be any different on a national scale, you need to think again.)

Okay...I'm getting hot under the collar, aren't I?  I'd better stop now.  If I've gone over the line, I apologize. :)



(* EDITED  to correct a mistaken reference to NATO when I meant NAFTA)

Edited by AnneZo, 05 April 2003 - 07:52 PM.


#78 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 08:14 AM

StarDust, on Apr 5 2003, 04:23 AM, said:

I think decades of trying to make them feel like equal partners have gone to their heads and the actually believe it now. We've treated them with kid gloves and I say it's time we stop.
I just want to say that I'm actually sort of appalled by this.  Are you saying that you don't actually think these countries are "equal" to us?

Because, you know, they are. In some ways they're superior. In some ways we're superior. But we're certainly "equals" in the world.  

I can assure you, their countries would survive quite nicely without us. Nor do we provide "aid" in the sense of handing out money to support their economies or whatever it is you're referring to.

Anne, who has never believed that possessing an abundance
of weapons infers any kind of moral superiority.


(edited for clarity)

Edited by AnneZo, 05 April 2003 - 08:18 AM.


#79 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,651 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 08:23 AM

Hey, I would vote for Powell, too! I wish he would run so we could see if it is possible for a great consensus candidate who happens to be African-American to be elected president of this country. I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about the possibility, but I'd love to be proven wrong. I may just have lived too long in South Carolina--and believe me, Strom Thurmond may have abandoned his racist practices for political expediency, but I can guarantee you that he never regretted them one bit, or changed his core prejudices.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#80 Anakam

Anakam

    Way Star

  • Islander
  • 13,862 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 08:30 AM

Anne?

:D

You rock. :alien:

{{{{{{{{Anne}}}}}}}}}

And I'm going to decline to comment, both because I'm supposed to be working on homework and because I'd probably go off on a long, long rant about wanting to be able to find a freaking job and finish college owing less than a year's salary.... :p
Sailing free, boundless glimmer, golden whispers, fiery poise, delicate balance, grave and true, bound by earth, feared horizons, courageous steps unknown, shimmering future hidden yet unveiled....

I think you're the first female cast member to *insist* on playing a guy ;) - Iolanthe, on my cross-casting obsession.

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, demi-paradise, this fortress built by Nature for herself... - John of Gaunt, Act II, Scene I, Richard II

"I think perhaps that was a sub-optimal phrasing for the maintenance of harmony within the collective." - Omega, here

"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?" - Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: John Kerry, Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users