How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 A Life in slow decay?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

A Life in slow decay?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


25 posted 09-18-2004 07:31 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

What does he mean, what are his core values and principals, what does he stand for? I think he needs to make himself more clear on the issues, especially the terrorism issue before election day.



He's made himself abundantly clear.  His opponents attempt to blur his position by throwing up their hands and saying they are confused.  Maybe the best place to regain Kerry's position is from the 9/11 Commission Report (already referenced above) which he has endorsed and moved for immediate implementation:

quote:

But the enemy is not just “terrorism,”some generic evil.2 This vagueness
blurs the strategy.The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more spe ­
cific.It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism —especially the al Qaeda net-
work,its affiliates,and its ideology.3

As we mentioned in chapter 2,Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terror ­
ist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream
of Islam (a minority tradition),from at least Ibn Taimiyyah,through the
founders of Wahhabism,through the Muslim Brotherhood,to Sayyid Qutb.
That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from reli ­
gion,thus distorting both.It is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin
and widely felt throughout the Muslim world —against the U.S.military pres ­
ence in the Middle East,policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim,and
support of Israel.Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say:
to them America is the font of all evil,the “head of the snake,”and it must be
converted or destroyed.

It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate.With it
there is no common ground —not even respect for life —on which to begin a
dialogue.It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.

9/11 Commission Report pg. 362



His core values also involve not compromising U.S. security by trumping up charges about WMD's in countries where they don't exist.  They involve not risking national security or destroying a persons life by breaking the law, breaching security, and revealing the name of a covert CIA operative which was done in retribution by the White House against the wife of Joseph Wilson --because he had " publicly disclosed that he had investigated and debunked intelligence linking Iraqi nuclear ambitions to the African nation of Niger. Wilson's investigation concluded in March 2002, nearly a year before Bush made the assertion that Iraq sought uranium in Africa during his 2003 State of the Union. Days after Wilson went public, columnist Robert Novak revealed that his wife was a CIA operative. The Washington Post reported that "a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife," CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 9/28/03]"

To which Bush responded "I have no idea if we'll find out who the leaker is."  If he can't even find out who a leaker is in his own administration -- how is he going to find terrorists halfway around the globe?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


26 posted 09-18-2004 08:34 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

His actions following the Viet Nam war also raise concerns.



By this you're probably referring to his congressional testimony excerpted for the Swift Boat Vet's ad.  That testimony featured reports that were made to him by other veterans -- he was quoting them.  What he did after the war was entirely within the scope of his core values -- that America is a force for good.  He was protesting the war crimes that he himself was asked to commit -- namely --  “I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.” And, Kerry claimed, “I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All this is contrary to the laws of warfare.”

A 'free fire zone' is an area where anything that moves is killed -- there is no distinction made between combatants and non-combatants -- it is against the Geneva Conventions.  A war crime.

He was also protesting against the lie the Nixon administration was promulgating re; the Vietnamization of the war -- that he was heading towards a strategy whereby the South Vietnamese would be strong enough to mount their own defense.  We all know how well that worked out.

quote:

We accepted that we had been sent to pursue a policy that had become bankrupt. Our political leaders had lead us into a war for the one-size-fits-all rationale of anticommunism, which was only a partial fit in Vietnam, where the war had its own historical roots in nationalism, anticolonialism, and civil strife beyond the East-West conflict. Our senior officers knew the war was going badly. Yet they bowed to groupthink pressure and kept up pretenses, the phony measure of body counts, the comforting illusion of secure hamlets, the inflated progress reports

--Colin Powell
My American Journey
Ballantine Books 1996
pp 144 http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/000999.html




John Oneill was a creation of Chuck Colson -- a surrogate for Nixon to destroy Kerry.  Even though after his Christian conversion Colson apologized to Kerry for everything he'd done -- Oneill is still on the warpath -- and still a Republican insider.

quote:

(excerpted from Nixon tapes which I've heard myself)

Nixon (to Oneill): Give it to him, give it to him. And you can do it, because you have a pleasant manner, too, because you’ve got — and I think it’s a great service to the country. [edit]

Nixon: You fellows have been out there. You’ve got to know, seeing the barbarians that we’re up against, you’ve got to know what we’re doing in that horrible swamp that North Vietnam is. You’ve got to know from all our faults of what we have in this country that, that what we’re doing is right. You’ve got to know too, people are critics. Critics of the war, critics of [unint], run America down. [edit] You’ve gotta know that you’re on the winning s—that, that you’re on the right side.
Two weeks later, the veterans squared off on the popular Dick Cavett show:
O’Neill: Mr. Kerry is the type of person who lives and survives only on the war weariness and fears of the American people. This is the same little man who on nationwide television in April spoke of, quote, crimes committed on a day to day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
Kerry: We believe as veterans who took part in this war we have nothing to gain by coming back here and talking about those things that have happened except to try and point the way to America, to try and say, here is where we went wrong, and we’ve got to change.
Later that year, even as the war continued, Kerry left the increasingly radical Vietnam Veterans Against the War. But the Nixon White House kept after John Kerry. It’s said that when Kerry ran for Congress in 1972, Nixon stayed up late on election night until he knew for sure that Kerry had been defeated.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274




Standing up for doing what you think is right -- fighting for what you believe in -- core values.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


27 posted 09-18-2004 09:06 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't think Kerry's opponents have to blur his position...he does that well enough on his own. You can't be both for and against something and not confuse people. He strikes me as a political opportunist trying to be all things to all people.

As I said before, he will have to be specific and define what he means by "swift and certain response" and what he believes constitutes a circumstance that would require the use of force. And he will have to explain how he will "grow the economy" and create an abundance of new jobs when he intends to raise the taxes of small business owners and corporations...the very people who have the power to create new jobs if they can afford to, and won't create new jobs if they are overburdened by taxes. And he will have to explain how he will provide the same health care to all Americans as the members of Congress enjoy without raising all of our taxes significantly.

And you're telling me what Kerry's core values are by casting aspersions and innuendo at Bush, but you're not telling me anything about Kerry.

And I think he did his fair share of compromising security and American soldiers' lives by his conduct after he left Viet Nam.

quote:
Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong.  You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record.  He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the President, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one
of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "The job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really President when you thought he was.  Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have
all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to
have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either.  The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war.  Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly
shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam."  And you admitted on television that "Yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi.

Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors.  Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished."  He  wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause.  Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on."  He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget?  When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less Commander-In-Chief.

One last thing, John.  In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm very sorry that I hurt them.  And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?

Oliver North


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


28 posted 09-18-2004 09:42 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So you see Denise...it's disingenuous to say you don't understand John Kerry on the issues.  You do.  He's a Democrat -- you're a Republican.  That's what you're objection to him is -- not that you're 'confused'.

And I'm not casting aspersions at Bush.  His administration destroyed that woman's life and compromised the CIA.  It's a fact.

Either Bush is incompetent to find the culprit -- or he doesn't want to because he agrees with the policy.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


29 posted 09-19-2004 09:32 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

And you would be wrong, L.R. I'm not being disingenuous. I don't understand Kerry's positions on any issue and it doesn't matter to me to which Party he is affiliated. He has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth, depending on the audience. You have to discount half of what he says to be able to say that you understand what side of an issue he is on.

For most of my adult life I have been registered as an Independent. I'm currently a registered Democrat. I've never been registered as a Republican. But it isn't Party affiliation that matters. I registered as a Democrat to broaden my ability to vote in primary elections. I don't vote a Party, I vote my conscience.

Wasn't an investigation launced to investigate the Valerie Plame matter? Didn't Bush pledge and give his full cooperation to the investigation? It isn't Bush's responsibility to find the 'leaker', it's the responsibility of the investigators, and therefore doesn't speak to Bush's level of competence.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


30 posted 09-19-2004 08:43 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Okay Denise -- (and before we get into this much further I just want to point out that James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and have two kids -- so lets just dispose of the notion right off the bat that there is any kind of personal malice going on here )  let's just say that you are confused, perhaps that's because you're source material is ex-convict Oliver North.  Nevertheless -- you started off on a single issue -- the question was asked and answered -- then you started yeah-butting onto other issues -- so it isn't merely confusion over one issue.

In this day and age there is absolutely no excuse for anybody with Internet access to not understand a candidate's position on anything -- It is understandable if someone is limited to 30 second sound bites on the evening news or -- if they get most of their news from MTV or Comedy Central.  

I've posted links before to sites to get the straight scoop -- and the poop scoop from the candidate's own websites -- but lets just run it right down issue by issue and tell me which ones you side with the Democrats on:

Abortion
Budget
Death Penalty
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign Policy
Gay and Lesbian Issues
Guns
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Iraq
Social Security
Trade

And sure an investigation was launched, John Ashcroft recused himself and appointed an underling (who works for him -- yanno the days of Independent Counsel went out the window with Ken Starr) and of course -- they all work for George -- who is responsible -- (we've investigated ourselves and found us to be completely innocent of all wrongdoing.)

Where does the Buck Stop Denise?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


31 posted 09-19-2004 10:24 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

What issues I agree or disagree on with the Democrats has nothing to do with the discussion, L.R.

I want straight answers from a candidate who is running for office and who wants my vote. Kerry isn't giving straight answers. He's giving fine-sounding, impassioned, but empty rhetoric, which for the most part is contradictory to what he has said a few days or a week before to a different audience. That confuses me and prevents me from having any confidence in him. And "swift and certain response" tells me nothing if he doesn't define what that means to him. "Using force when it is required" tells me nothing if he doesn't define the circumstances under which he believes it would be required. So no, my questions have not been answered. And I never said I was confused by him over only one issue, although the terrorism issue is paramount to me in this election.

In this day and age of the internet there is no excuse for not knowing a candidate's positons...unless the candidate is obfuscating his positions deliberately, trying to be all things to all people, or as a result of his "nuanced thinking", as his campaign folks have called it. The result is the same.

And changing the topic to Bush does not answer my questions about Kerry. And the fact that Oliver North spent time in jail doesn't absolve Kerry of his conduct.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


32 posted 09-19-2004 10:54 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I registered as a Democrat to broaden my ability to vote in primary elections.



What does this mean?  Why register as a Democrat?  What issues you agree with is what identifies you as being a practitioner of a particular ideology.

Ideology is what is driving your strawman argument about Kerry.  It's koolaid drinking Republican rhetoric.

Tell me what instances of flip-flopping you're talking about?

Is it something like ordering troops to take Falujha and then three days later telling them not to?

You see -- the contrast between candidates is what an election is about -- you talk about Kerry -- you have to talk about Bush.

Your basic choice between these two candidates is which one is going to be able to forge the kind of long term international relationships that are required to prosecute the war on Islamist extremism?  It doesn't take any talent to pull a trigger -- we've done that -- we're in Iraq -- the NEI reports say our prospects are grim or grimmer.  

This administration is even being called incompetent by it's own Senate leaders (Dick Lugar R. Indiana Chairman Foreign Relations Committee this morning on This Week).  The went into Iraq underpowered because Rumsfeld wanted to do it on the cheap -- they had no plan for dealing with internal security -- no plan for rebuilding -- but -- they pulled the trigger.

Bush says freedom is on the march around the world -- meanwhile the Sunni Triangle is completly lost to the insurgents -- while Putin is pulling the closest thing to a Hitler power grab since WWII.  

You feel safer?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


33 posted 09-19-2004 11:01 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh, one other thing..

The 'clarification' you're looking for re: when Kerry would use force was pulled once before on a candidate -- Dan Quale -- to which he gave the only sentient reply -- tell me what the circumstances are and I'll tell you if we have to use force.

Tell him what mess Kerry would inherit on January 20, 2005 -- he'll clarify it for you.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


34 posted 09-19-2004 11:04 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Not saying he is, mind ya, but Kerry, for some reason, reminds me of Mussolini Fascism.  This was also known as Gypsies of Politics, or rather simply 'wherever the wind blows, there I go'.  Also, after musing over many news programs and internet articles, and after a lengthy discussion with my SO, I came to the conclusion that Kerry is the default candidate, since there has to be at least 2 candidates for a viable election.  Most of what I'm getting is that voters are for or against Bush, not for Bush or for Kerry.  And in that sense, Kerry is merely default.

Though I've mentioned before that I support Bush, and am a registered Republican, I have never in my life voted the Party Line, and don't intend to begin any time soon.  And I do try to keep an open mind about things.  Howsoever, all I've been told about Kerry (not what I've learned on my own) is that he was in Vietnam, came back and protested Vietnam, and then 20 years later is running for President.  The DNC has, for whatever reason, effectively erased Kerry's 20 years in the U.S. Senate.  Even Kerry's acceptance speech didn't touch on that subject.  Just Vietnam, protest Vietnam, running for President.  And in a time when most candidates for whatever position run on their record and what they hope to achieve if elected, Kerry's tactic does leave this one a bit befuddled.  But who knows, maybe that's just how he does things and how he kept getting elected as a Massachusetts U.S. Senator, not on his record, but just by who he is and who he portrays.

Kerry and Edwards are both very persuasive speakers.  I do know when Edwards was making a very good living from being a trial lawyer, the mere mention of his name was enough to get parties to settle out of court.  However, Bush, irregardless of how you feel about him, is also a very persuasive speaker.  I, for one, look forward to the Debates with interest.

Alicat
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


35 posted 09-19-2004 11:15 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

As an aside, it is interesting how this thread became a debate about Bush and Kerry, though understandable.  The initial post by Goldenrose was vague enough to bring any interpretation one wanted to bring to the table.  It seemed more a gripe about those whom we elect, irregardless of nationality, who, in our own minds, abuse the trust we gave them.  Not pointedly at Blair, Bush, or Europe steeped in Democratic Socialism...wasn't there a war about that not too long ago?  Anyhow, it was a rant, a gripe, and purposefully left ambigious, though the unmentioned and alluded to details were all too soon clarified.  So when, exactly, did it evolve into a anti-Kerry or anti-Bush?

In an attempt to answer the intial thread questions, war is simply our way of thinning the population, though that may seem very callous and oversimplistic to some.  Simply examine history: roughly every 30 years, or every generation, there is a war somewhere.
Goldenrose
Member Elite
since 05-30-2003
Posts 3637


36 posted 09-20-2004 06:13 AM       View Profile for Goldenrose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Goldenrose

I would just like to know how all of this talk got into MY thread...i am talking about a life in slow decay...how has ANY of this got anything to do with my thread?...if you want to talk about this start another thread...

Goldenrose.
Skyfyre
Senior Member
since 08-15-99
Posts 1966
Sitting in Michael's Lap


37 posted 09-20-2004 05:08 PM       View Profile for Skyfyre   Email Skyfyre   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Skyfyre

In response to the original topic:

Society is not in slow decay.  It is fighting tooth and nail against basic human nature to make this planet we live on a better place.

Before I go too far into this, Goldenrose, I wonder if you'd clarify what your basis for comparison is?  Is there some period in human history that you feel was better, in an overall sense, than the times we live in?
Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 07-17-99
Posts 8273


38 posted 09-20-2004 05:12 PM       View Profile for Severn   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Severn

Hmmm..

GR - I'm going to remind you of a little incident we experienced a year ago in this forum. Do you remember that?

I'd suggest, very politely, that you refrain from ordering people about what they can and can't say, yes? Just let the thread take it's natural course and let people express themselves how they wish - just as you have.

If you need to ask why I say this - look back a year or so ago and think about what happened.

Kind Regards

K
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


39 posted 09-21-2004 08:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
not the empty suit that occupies the white house today and brings shame on the courageous work of past great presidents?


Actually Ali, Goldenrose himself made this anti-Bush from the get-go back in post #6.

quote:
What does this mean? Why register as a Democrat?


It simply means, L.R., that as a registered Independent, I had no voice in primary elections…getting my say in who I would like to see in the general election, since Independents and Republicans don’t usually have primaries. So now that I can vote in the Democratic primaries I have more of a say in the political world. But maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, maybe only liberals should have that privilege.

quote:
What issues you agree with is what identifies you as being a practitioner of a particular ideology.


Yes, it does. Does that mean, though, that since I am of a conservative ideology I have to restrict myself to a particular party affiliation when registering to vote?

quote:
Ideology is what is driving your strawman argument about Kerry. It's koolaid drinking Republican rhetoric.


Really? And what flavor of koolaid drives your ideology and strawman arguments?

quote:
Tell me what instances of flip-flopping you're talking about?


Well, I don’t have time for a book, but just a few for-instances: first he’s a hawk, then he’s a dove; first he supports the President’s war effort, then it was all a mistake, but if he had to do it all over again he would have voted exactly the same way on the issue…oops…I think he changed his mind on that again. I could be wrong, though, it’s so hard to keep up; first if people think the world isn’t better without Saddam, then they just don’t know what they are talking about, then just yesterday, the world would be in a much better situation today if we had allowed Saddam to remain in power; first all American’s should have the same health care as members of Congress (at an estimated cost of 1.3 trillion dollars…but he’s only going to rescind the tax cuts on the wealthy and not raise taxes on the middle class, even though there has never been a tax increase on anybody or anything that he ever voted against…and he's going to create tons of fabulous paying jobs to boot!), then Bush is going to bankrupt America because of his plan to give prescription drug cards to Senior Citizens. Then he says Bush is going to destroy Social Security, by allowing people to invest privately towards their retirement if they want to, even though Kerry voted to use Social Security funds for other government purposes.

Is any of this supposed to spell out any kind of a cogent platform on which to run for President? I'm not seeing it.

quote:
Your basic choice between these two candidates is which one is going to be able to forge the kind of long term international relationships that are required to prosecute the war on Islamist extremism?


I don’t agree. Those who actually care about fighting Islamist terrorism are already doing so, in my opinion.

quote:
Bush says freedom is on the march around the world -- meanwhile the Sunni Triangle is completely lost to the insurgents -- while Putin is pulling the closest thing to a Hitler power grab since WWII.


I believe freedom is on the march. Fighting for freedom is always hard. But we will prevail if we don’t quit.

quote:
The 'clarification' you're looking for re: when Kerry would use force was pulled once before on a candidate -- Dan Quale -- to which he gave the only sentient reply -- tell me what the circumstances are and I'll tell you if we have to use force.


I could be wrong, but I suspect his answer might depend upon the day of the week, or maybe even on how the French, Germans, and Kofi Anan decide the situation should be handled. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


40 posted 09-21-2004 10:57 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
What does this mean? Why register as a Democrat?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It simply means, L.R., that as a registered Independent, I had no voice in primary elections…getting my say in who I would like to see in the general election, since Independents and Republicans don’t usually have primaries. So now that I can vote in the Democratic primaries I have more of a say in the political world. But maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, maybe only liberals should have that privilege.


Republicans don't usually have primaries? When did that start? They didn't have primaries this time around, sure, but perhaps you're lack of say in the political world is the result of a conservative ideology?

Just a thought.


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What issues you agree with is what identifies you as being a practitioner of a particular ideology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it does. Does that mean, though, that since I am of a conservative ideology I have to restrict myself to a particular party affiliation when registering to vote?



Curious, who did you vote for in the democratic primaries?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideology is what is driving your strawman argument about Kerry. It's koolaid drinking Republican rhetoric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? And what flavor of koolaid drives your ideology and strawman arguments?


What strawman arguments? I pop over to National Review or to the Washington Times or that news site you like to post from time to time and read the same thing you write. I read Ann Coulter and, though you're not as thoroughly insane as she is (I know, I know, it's satire), but the gist is the same.

I saw the Republican convention. Entertaining but in the end, it centered around a number of untruths and some vague abstractions like leadership.


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me what instances of flip-flopping you're talking about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I don’t have time for a book, but just a few for-instances: first he’s a hawk, then he’s a dove; first he supports the President’s war effort, then it was all a mistake, but if he had to do it all over again he would have voted exactly the same way on the issue…oops…I think he changed his mind on that again. I could be wrong, though, it’s so hard to keep up; first if people think the world isn’t better without Saddam, then they just don’t know what they are talking about, then just yesterday, the world would be in a much better situation today if we had allowed Saddam to remain in power; first all American’s should have the same health care as members of Congress (at an estimated cost of 1.3 trillion dollars…but he’s only going to rescind the tax cuts on the wealthy and not raise taxes on the middle class, even though there has never been a tax increase on anybody or anything that he ever voted against…and he's going to create tons of fabulous paying jobs to boot!), then Bush is going to bankrupt America because of his plan to give prescription drug cards to Senior Citizens. Then he says Bush is going to destroy Social Security, by allowing people to invest privately towards their retirement if they want to, even though Kerry voted to use Social Security funds for other government purposes.

Is any of this supposed to spell out any kind of a cogent platform on which to run for President? I'm not seeing it.


He supported the authority to go to war, he disagreed with the actions this administration took. Is that difficult to understand? He supported the troops in the field, he disagreed with the method of payment (ie your grandchildren will pay). Is that difficult to understand?

Is the American health care system working well today?  If it ain't broke, don't fix it? But what do you think we should do if it is broken?


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your basic choice between these two candidates is which one is going to be able to forge the kind of long term international relationships that are required to prosecute the war on Islamist extremism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t agree. Those who actually care about fighting Islamist terrorism are already doing so, in my opinion.


Tell that to the parents.


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush says freedom is on the march around the world -- meanwhile the Sunni Triangle is completely lost to the insurgents -- while Putin is pulling the closest thing to a Hitler power grab since WWII.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe freedom is on the march. Fighting for freedom is always hard. But we will prevail if we don’t quit.


Yes, we will.

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'clarification' you're looking for re: when Kerry would use force was pulled once before on a candidate -- Dan Quale -- to which he gave the only sentient reply -- tell me what the circumstances are and I'll tell you if we have to use force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could be wrong, but I suspect his answer might depend upon the day of the week, or maybe even on how the French, Germans, and Kofi Anan decide the situation should be handled. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.


Now I understand. It's who decides that matters. Whether it's wrong or right doesn't matter, as long as the decision is being made sans outside interference.

What is actually being decided is irrelevant.

I see, Chirac and Schroder and Anan are all little Saddams in disguise.

Vote for Kerry, it's a vote for sanity.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


41 posted 09-21-2004 11:34 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I don't get it Denise.  

Why do you feel the need to vote in a Primary for someone you wouldn't vote for in the General Election?  Republicans have as many Primaries as Democrats do -- oh -- but there's that incumbency problem -- that's the price of having a party that dominates both houses and the executive branch.  Why do you want to play in someone else's sandbox?

I am not, on the other hand, an ideologue.  I am a centrist.  I'm not drinking anybody's koolaid-- which is why I keep directing people to sites like factcheck.org --I'm not buying Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh, or Ollie-I-am-a-traitor-becuase-I-provided-weapons-to-the-enemy-North, but your whole litany of distortions of Kerry's issues (which happens to be the exact demagoguery language coming from the RNC and the Bush camp) just re-affirms my earlier point.

For the single issue voter -- National Security -- there are two choices -- you have two men who are both interested in protecting this country -- One, shoots first and asks questions later and has made a royal mess in Iraq.  The other understands the task is broader than simply a use of force.  We have slapped a big fist at a ball of mercury -- we went into Iraq with no plan.  Even Bush 41 outlined entirely what would happen if we took out Saddam.

Once again -- READ the 9/11 Commission Report -- a Bi-Partisan completely unanimous effort -- (you see -- that's not an ideological point of view).  Something Bush was against having -- and then for having -- see -- anybody can play that game.  If, all of a sudden, you were to change my mind -- and I agreed with you -- would that be a flip-flop?  

quote:

I believe freedom is on the march. Fighting for freedom is always hard. But we will prevail if we don’t quit.



FACTS:
Russia -- Democracy is in dissolution
China -- No democratic reforms
Iraq -- National Intelligence Estimate says it's going to stay the same or degenerate into Civil War.  Terrorist Enrollment is up 400% over this time last year and more terrorists are pouring into the country.
Korea -- Nuked up
Iran -- Nuking up

What's really interesting is the Neo-Cons seem to still be in love with Russia and China -- because of their free-market stance -- but hate the real Democracies of Western Europe because they utilize a socialized paradigm.  

quote:

I could be wrong, but I suspect his answer might depend upon the day of the week, or maybe even on how the French, Germans, and Kofi Anan decide the situation should be handled. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.



You ARE wrong.

Ali --

In the originating post GR said THIS:

quote:

We the people put these warmongerers in their position, we should be standing up and saying NO more wars in our name.

Once they are in office they dont care about the people, they only care about money and power, if they have to kill people as they go along they will.




So this seems to have been the topic from the get-go as far as I'm concerned.

RE; the question of Bush -- in any election with an incumbent the first question is whether or not the guy in office deserves a second term -- then the next question is whether or not the other guy is a better alternative.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


42 posted 09-22-2004 09:53 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Brad and L.R., I live in a Democratic city. In every election cycle there are Democratic primaries. Republican primaries here are extremely rare.

I have voted for Democrats in primary and in general elections. I didn't vote in the last one. I don't know who I will be voting for until I know who is running and where they stand on the issues currently at hand that are of concern to me. I don't vote a Party. I evaluate what the candidate's are saying and then make my choice depending on the issues. I've voted for Democrats, I've voted for Republicans, I've voted for Independents. Having a conservative bent doesn't equate with being a Republican even if the reverse might not be true nowadays.

You can dismiss my observations on Kerry as strawman arguments and chalk it up to my being an ideologue if you wish. But his actions are there for anyone to see. He keeps saying different things to different audiences. And I doubt it's because he has been persuaded to change his mind. Nobody should be persuaded that easily and often. Nobody with strong convictions is.

Who will pay for Kerry's health care plan, the tooth fairy? You can't convincingly accuse Bush of bankrupting America because of the war and prescription drug cards for seniors and then turn around and propose a 1.3 trillion dollar health plan and say you aren't going to raise taxes. Someone has to pay for it.

Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force if necessary if Saddam didn't come into compliance. He says he only did that to give the President the clout, the authority, to actually do so, so that Saddam wouldn't perceive it as any empty threat, a bluff. Has anyone asked Kerry what should have been done if/when Saddam called our bluff? I'd love to hear that explanation.

When Saddam still didn't come into compliance, Kerry now says Bush was wrong for using that authority to invade Iraq, the very thing that his vote authorized. Did he think that Bush really was just bluffing? Did he wish that Bush was just bluffing? Did he believe that Bush should have played the same bluffing game played by the U.N. for twelve years but was hoping that Saddam would be fooled by it and actually cooperate, because the members of Congress backed Bush?

If he really thought it was wrong for Bush to use force under those circumstances, and he were a man of character and principle, he would not have given his consent. A man of character and prinicple would have voted "no". So he either agreed with Bush at the time and is lying about it now or he never agreed with Bush and is nothing more than a political opportunist.

No Chirac, et al, are not all little Saddams. They've just demonstrated that they have no interest in fighting terrorism. They've demonstrated that they have an appeasement mindset when it comes to terrorists. Appeasement of the terrorists is never the right thing to do, and I don't want someone as President who may allow himself to be persuaded into that mindset. The COUNTRIES willing to fight terrorism are already doing so.

The terrorists want Kerry to win. The recent increase in violence in Iraq is a calculated move and by no means a coincidence. They have attempted to sway elections before. Sometimes they succeed. So a vote for Kerry is actually doing their bidding. That's sanity?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


43 posted 09-23-2004 12:14 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Denise,

No one is questioning your integrity. But if the issue is indeed about character, please describe the character of a man who goes to war and cuts taxes at the same time?

Who is going to pay for all of this?

Kerry's position, if you've been following what he's actually said and not the sound bites, hasn't changed. He voted to authorize the use of force if necessary and believes that Bush's call was not necessary.

I think he's right. This has nothing to do with bluffing, it has to do with making the right call.

If you disagree with Bush, it does not mean you are against fighting terrorists, it means you disagree with the way Bush is fighting terror. If you're fighting a fire in Southern California, does it make sense to start another one in Nevada?

I have no idea who terrorists want in the election. I suspect most don't care, but then again I don't really care what they think.

You shouldn't either.

wranx
Member Elite
since 06-07-2002
Posts 3778
Moved from a shack to a barn


44 posted 09-23-2004 11:02 PM       View Profile for wranx   Email wranx   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for wranx

This thread, all told is wonderful...
I would only wish that everyone that votes in this (or any) election takes the time to educate themselves as well as you all have. (whatever side you're on)

And to tie this back to GR's question...

The next president will not be elected by the people enjoying this discussion or by other "thinking" people. But rather, by people that actually give a damn about which "model", "starlet", "hooker" that "The Bachelor" decides is worthy of him.    

So, yes! I believe this particular society is in decline.

*smiley thingy*
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


45 posted 09-24-2004 07:39 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

That's two different subjects, Brad. Kerry is saying that he will increase spending even more than it is now by adding his 1.3 trillion dollar health care plan but that he will rescind the tax cuts only on the wealthy. If that is the case and he doesn't rescind the tax cuts on everyone, then he too will be passing along a huge debt to our grandchildren, the same thing that Bush is being blamed for doing. Somebody has to pay for it. Now  I can assume that since he doesn't agree with Bush's way of giving tax cuts and increasing spending at the same time, then he will either raise taxes (which he says he won't do), and raise them significantly, or he will pass the debt along to future generations (but how could he do that if he thinks Bush is wrong for doing that?)...so then again, I don't know what he would really do because I am getting confusing signals from the man. And to me, that speaks to his integrity because he isn't being straightforward. I would think that he either has to raise taxes or follow the same path that Bush is on. Do you know of any other option, other than not really planning on providing the health care plan that he says he will?

Kerry didn't know what circumstance would make the invasion necessary? Wasn't the whole point of the vote to give Bush the authority to go to war if Saddam did not fully cooperate with the latest ultimatum?

Why shouldn't we be concerned about who the terrorists believe would be more advantageous to their goals? To me, at least, that seems like it should be at the top of the list.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


46 posted 09-24-2004 11:30 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

What do you mean by blame?

They are two different subjects, one is something that happened and is happening and one is Denise's supposition.

"Time is out of joint"

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


47 posted 09-25-2004 09:32 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

A supposition that wouldn't be necessary, Brad, if straight answers were being given in the first place.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


48 posted 09-25-2004 04:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You are a dynamite lady, Denise. I admire you
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


49 posted 09-25-2004 05:07 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, even the more conservative nay sayers admit that that one trillion dollar figure is over ten years starting in 2006.

But the price ranges from 650 billion
to your figure (which I haven't seen anywhere else).

Over the course of ten years. Kerry says he wishes to place more emphasis on preventative care (read sin taxes again) and repeal the tax cuts for those in the highest two percent income bracket.

It seems fairly clear to me, but then again I don't think it's going to pass. Not with some radical shifts in Congress anyway. But I'd be happy with attempting to stem presciption drug prices and increasing rather than decreasing the number of people with health insurance.

But wait, this complaint of yours goes right to the heart of the whole thing. Do you agree that fiscal responsibility is important or do you agree with Cheney when he says, "Deficits don't matter"?

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> A Life in slow decay?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors