|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 30, 2004 13:31:26 GMT -5
I realize that we're not on the verge of war or anything, I just think that the long term affects of showing no regard for the views of our allies (and, in many cases outright mocking them) could be rather severe. It's created nothing but awkward tensions so far I suppose, but I see no reason why it couldn't turn into trade issues or something else in the future if its not rectified.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 30, 2004 13:37:32 GMT -5
Can you give me one example of Bush being guilty of this mocking you keep on talking about? I can remember Rumsfeld making a comment once in a press conference, and almost instantly being called on it by both Bush and Powell. What exactly are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jul 30, 2004 13:46:51 GMT -5
I didn't say Bush specifically did any mocking, I said that much of the right did, which you seem to ackknowledge. But the President is not the only significant person in his administration, and he's not the only person who can make things necessary to put a new administration in (although he's certainly done enough to require it in his own right).
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 30, 2004 13:51:40 GMT -5
Rocky, I have to be honest with you ... I am not following your argument here to such a degree that I have no idea how to respond at this point. Let me recap, tell me where I'm wrong --
- You said that the difference between what Bush has done with Iraq and what Kerry endorsed last night is that Kerry is saying you try, but do it alone if you have to. Bush on the other hand tried, than did it alone, and mocked or taunted countries who did not get in with us.
- This mocking and taunting apparently did not come from Bush, but people on the right. It appears that one of those was Rumsfeld, since you said that I agreed with you. But since that's the only one I acknowledged, it appears to be the only case.
If that is a fair asessment, then I just have to ask ... Rumsfeld said it, Bush called him on it, and Rumsfeld apologized. So if that's all the mocking and taunting, than doesn't that mean that Kerry is endorsing what Bush has done?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 30, 2004 17:31:44 GMT -5
While Im on the topic of Kerry's statements that make no sense to me, perhaps someone can shed some light on another one ... Kerry seems to have picked up the torch from Howard Dean on this whole "we must take back the flag. The flag does not belong to the Republicans". When did George Bush or any other Republican ever claim to have ownership of the flag? where did this whole notion come from? I can't come up with anything aside from a "if we say it enough, people will be convinced we hve to fight a fight that doesn't really exsist".
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 30, 2004 18:05:00 GMT -5
John Kerry: The Bagel Candidate
By Dick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 30, 2004
I loved Bill Clinton's speech. I was inspired by John Edwards. Bar ack Obama thrilled me. Max Cleland made me grow as a person as I heard him . . .
And then there was John Kerry.
All around him was eloquence but, in the center of the bagel, there was a speech that was a letdown.
And did he just tell 140,000 men and women fighting in Iraq that they are there because of a mistake?
By insisting that we are in Iraq because we "want to be," rather than because we "have to be," he is telling them that they are risking their lives for an optional, elective adventure. The fact is, that the reason we have not been attacked in the United States is that the terrorists are fleeing from cave to cave in Afghanistan and from building to building in Iraq — pursued by our heroic young men and women.
I honor his service in Vietnam. I think a man who knows what it is like to fight in a war is a good person to have as commander-in-chief. John Kerry is a good man. But what else is there?
Last time I checked, Sen. John Kerry was 60 years old. But to listen to his speech last night at the Democratic National Convention, you would think he was still in his 20s.
He opened up his talk with a lengthy and evocative description of his childhood and what it was like growing up in divided Berlin. He told us of the "goose bumps" he remembers getting when the band struck up "Stars and Stripes Forever."
Then, after this long rendition of his childhood, he tells us at length what it was like to serve in Vietnam for the four months that he was there. So far, so good.
But then he spent only about one minute talking about what he has done since.
Beyond a brief allusion to his efforts for crime victims and to prosecute crimes against women as an assistant district attorney, his support for Clinton's plan for extra cops and a balanced budget and a reference to his work with John McCain on the POW and MIA issue in Vietnam, that's it.
What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate?
What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in?
What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What businesses did he persuade to come to the Bay State? Which elderly did he help get their Social Security benefits? What injustices did he correct?
Kerry's biography ends at 24.
America does not want to elect a lieutenant to the presidency. The voters want a commander-in-chief, but there is precious little in the autobiography of John Kerry, as we heard it last night, to commend him to us.
The Democratic National Convention closes as a nutritious, tasty, appetizing bagel — with a hole in the middle.
John Kerry? Oh yeah, he's the guy who fought in Vietnam and then he ran for president. That's not enough. Where did his 20 years in the Senate go?
Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there. We were always figuring out how to deal with Ted Kennedy or Pat Moynihan or Tom Daschle or Phil Gramm, or Al D'Amato or Bob Dole or Jesse Helms or Orin Hatch or Joe Biden. But nobody every asked about John Kerry.
He wasn't much there then, and he's not much there now. Only now he wants us to trust him to be president.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 30, 2004 18:19:26 GMT -5
after just watching pat robertson speak, i can only say one thing about him.
LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by PC on Jul 30, 2004 21:03:09 GMT -5
What did he say?
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 31, 2004 7:08:13 GMT -5
i only saw him briefly, but when he went into calling john kerry a killer of 40,000 unborn children for believing in abortion, i had to walk away.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 31, 2004 17:32:05 GMT -5
While Im on the topic of Kerry's statements that make no sense to me, perhaps someone can shed some light on another one ... Kerry seems to have picked up the torch from Howard Dean on this whole "we must take back the flag. The flag does not belong to the Republicans". When did George Bush or any other Republican ever claim to have ownership of the flag? where did this whole notion come from? I can't come up with anything aside from a "if we say it enough, people will be convinced we hve to fight a fight that doesn't really exsist". I haven't heard anything quite like that said, but it wouldn't surprise me, Chris. I think what Kerry may be referring to is the tendency for some Republicans to imply that if you don't back the administration and its agenda then you are less than "patriotic." Some say that to make your dissention about policy and what you think your government should or should not be doing heard is equally or even more "patriotic." It's not a new concept. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 1, 2004 12:44:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 1, 2004 20:00:47 GMT -5
That's a cool cartoon Proud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 2, 2004 1:07:12 GMT -5
hey, if someone can't laugh at both sides, then things're being taken too seriously. thought it was something pretty witty.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 2, 2004 7:51:25 GMT -5
I haven't heard anything quite like that said, but it wouldn't surprise me, Chris. I think what Kerry may be referring to is the tendency for some Republicans to imply that if you don't back the administration and its agenda then you are less than "patriotic." Some say that to make your dissention about policy and what you think your government should or should not be doing heard is equally or even more "patriotic." It's not a new concept. The language that Kerry was using Thursday in his speech, was much in line with Howard Dean's whole "we must take back the flag from people like John Ashcroft and Rush Limbaugh who think it belongs to them". I see where you're coming from, but even the dissention issue, IMO, was self-created whining by the dissenters. If I make a statement, you disagree with it, and I defend it, I'm not squelching your right to disagree with me. I'm simply defending my point. It just seems strange to me that half the issues that the Democrats seem to be brining up against Bush are issues they've createdrather than those that are actually there. |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Aug 2, 2004 8:54:48 GMT -5
The left have not 'created' the issue. Nor do they whinge, especially.
The right constantly infer that the left lack patriotism, and win public confidence on issues like defence and national security (as well as immigration and asylum) by using tough and uncompromising rhetoric. You know, lefties are pinkos, burn the flag, lack values, hate their own country. THAT sort of rhetoric.
When this is challenged, the left are portrayed as weak, in favour of cutting the armed services (which is why soldiers generally vote right-wing), suspect on defence, weak on immigration.
It's the same in Europe. Then when the left point out that the right wing understanding of 'patriotism' is actually a nasty little nationalistic mindset that preys on stoking fear and xenophobia in the populace, the argument invariably becomes fiercer and even less constructive.
It goes way further than the patriotism issue too. The right in the US and the UK has done a great job of making certain words - socialist, liberal, tax, redistribution, green - dirty, vote-losing words, with the help of all their powerful media allies. The final lie or spin is then to harp on about the media being left-wing, so then of course the cowed media becomes even more compliant with right-wing, establishment, authoritarian agendas. It's left the left-wing marginalised in both nations, and their representatives in office have to dress themselves in uselessly moderate clothes.
|
|
