OT: What do people see in George Bush.

[pk500]

>>>There are plenty of people that believe in a religion and will be supporting Kerry.<<<

Nice presumption. I don't support Kerry, either. I'll vote Libertarian for the third consecutive presidential election.

Out,
PK

[Parker]

And I expected that you would. I wonder if you would do so in a battleground state however where it could keep Bush in power.

But once again, you assume that everything I write is directed at you. This election and most debates will be dominated by Republicans and Democrats and thus Bush and Kerry, for no particular reason I decided just to use Kerry in the sentence. I was merely responding to the general discussion of religion and its role in politics not to your specific situation.

[pk500]

>>>And I expected that you would. I wonder if you would do so in a battleground state however where it could keep Bush in power.<<<

I could care less if my vote keeps Bush in power. I'm voting to elect a Libertarian, not to defeat Bush.

And considering you respond to nearly every political-related post I make in here, why shouldn't I think you are responding directly to me? I don't think my writings in here are thought-provoking enough to prompt the kind of almost instantaneous responses I get from you, and usually only you. So why should I think otherwise?

Despite your icy, detached personna in here, you're as easy to wind up as a kid's top.

Hugs and f*cks,
PK

[Parker]

Much of the time, I don't even realize who the poster is that I quote. I was just trying to aim my post at a specific point in this discussion, and I signaled this by quoting your sentences about the topic. It is a bit of a problem on all message boards, there should be a way to indicate that you are not directly addressing someone with a quote but only want to expand upon a point on a page where many different subtopics are going on.

As I recall, you didn't start this thread either.

You can do what you want, but personally I know at least 10 people like me who voted for Nader the last time who will be voting for Kerry. Of course it's not that relevant in this state either.

[pk500]

Five minutes between my post and Parker's reply. I rest my case.

Take care,
PK

[Parker]

Ummmm ya, as long as I am directly addressed, I will respond promptly if I can.

[RiverRat]

Bush's approach to foreign policy where consulting the international community is a mere trivality has only appealed to his stable base of voters, it has done nothing to win support from liberals or many moderates.

You're wrong on that point. It appeals to anybody who thinks that the U.N. is not reliable when it comes to addressing significant international security concerns. If the recent D-Day celebrations and discussion of Reagan winning the Cold War (an idea I don't completely agree with) has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated that if you want to "address" significant security issues on a global scale, you're likely to have to do it on your own.

Would the U.N. or the "international community" given us permission to win the Cold War they way we did? Absolutely not.

If the U.N. existed in 1944, would it have given the U.S. permission to land in Normandy? Very unlikely.

Will the U.N. ever give permission to the U.S. to eradicate global terrorism? Of course not.

If these are your goals, you're going to have to do it yourself. Regardless of how you feel about Bush, you have to admit he understands this. A lot of people outside of his "base" agree with that. I don't like Bush, but I can at least appreciate his point.

[pk500]

>>>Much of the time, I don't even realize who the poster is that I quote.<<<

This rates right up there with "I did not ... have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" comment by Clinton.

Glad I didn't have liquid in my mouth when I read that.

Take care,
PK

[J_Cauthen]

I continue to wonder in amazement why we can't get honest, respectable "leaders" to run for the office of President? I've been utterly bewildered from the time I reached voting age at the "mainstream" (ie. democrat/republican) candidates that are trotted out for such an important position.

I thought having to pick the lesser of two evils between Bush and Gore was tough, but Bush and Kerry is even tougher... (BTW, I didn't vote for either - I voted for Harry Browne (Libertarian), as I usually do in Presidential elections).

Bush simply doesn't inspire me as a leader. As PK said, he had his moments in the 911 aftermath, but he's been on a downhill slide since then. My wife was an ardent Bush supporter 4 years ago, but now she's having major reservations about him. For the first time in her life, she's giving serious consideration to voting Libertarian (Michael Badnarik). BTW, Michael was on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell Friday night, and he would mop the floor with Kerry or Bush in a debate, IMO. He'd got my vote come November.

[Jared]

Alright children,

We really don't want every political thread to degenerate into PK vs. Parker.

I really have no idea if Parker is responding specifically to PK, or PK specifically to Parker, or whatever. I really don't think that either of you have a direct personal vendetta against each other and go searching for the posts of the other person.

But both of you (PK and Parker) are very opinionated, will stand up and defend your opinions, have very different opinions, and (probably) don't like each other at some level (though please, I really don't want to hear if you do or don't).

PK,

Parker responds quickly to your posts. But he responds quickly to lots of people's posts. If you look in the thread, it took him 11 minutes to respond to RiverRat's post...so I think he's responding to everyone quickly. Whether he pays attention to who's posting....who knows. But you post a lot, and he disagrees with you a lot, so there's gonna be lots of back and forth. As for getting wound up, you both are. Your "response times" to his last few posts have been 2, 1, 7 and 2 minutes.

Parker,

Your style doesn't help cool down the antagonism. There tends to be a bit of snark and sarcasm in a lot of your posts, including ones directed at PK. You're not the only one to do it here, but it doesn't help things at all. Try and cut down the sarcasm. Also, try and cut down the wandering in threads...you tend to wander about from point to point in a thread, which makes people think (fairly or unfairly) that you really don't have a point at all.

-----------

It's funny....because you both have similar styles of argumentation in some ways. And since you two have such disparate opinions, it always turns into a battle. So debate is fine. But personal feuds aren't. I don't want every political thread to turn into PK v. Parker. You both can contribute, but do it with some respect and dignity for the other side. If you can't, I'm gonna have to start locking posts and temp banning. So just calm down, people.

[Parker]

Bush's approach to foreign policy where consulting the international community is a mere trivality has only appealed to his stable base of voters, it has done nothing to win support from liberals or many moderates.

You're wrong on that point. It appeals to anybody who thinks that the U.N. is not reliable when it comes to addressing significant international security concerns. If the recent D-Day celebrations and discussion of Reagan winning the Cold War (an idea I don't completely agree with) has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated that if you want to "address" significant security issues on a global scale, you're likely to have to do it on your own.

Would the U.N. or the "international community" given us permission to win the Cold War they way we did? Absolutely not.

If the U.N. existed in 1944, would it have given the U.S. permission to land in Normandy? Very unlikely.

Will the U.N. ever give permission to the U.S. to eradicate global terrorism? Of course not.

If these are your goals, you're going to have to do it yourself. Regardless of how you feel about Bush, you have to admit he understands this. A lot of people outside of his "base" agree with that. I don't like Bush, but I can at least appreciate his point.

You must have mentioned UN a dozen times. For some reason, Republicans seem to think that to be part of an international community entails nothing else than dealing with the UN. Let's say that the UN is useless even though I don't agree. Does that mean the US should make no attempt to go outside the boundaries of the UN to form alliances or engage in diplomacy? The UN is an important body, but it's not the only way to practice a non-unilateral foreign policy, particularly with a country as powerful as the US. Many voters including moderates may be dissatisfied with the UN, but that doesn't mean they completely excuse Bush's approach to foreign relations.

[RiverRat]

I continue to wonder in amazement why we can't get honest, respectable "leaders" to run for the office of President?

The answer is that honesty, respectability, and being a major party nominee with a real chance to achieve the presidency are not compatible. Honest, respectable people will not put themselves through the things one must go through to achieve that kind of station in public life.

For the first time in her life, she's giving serious consideration to voting Libertarian (Michael Badnarik). BTW, Michael was on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell Friday night, and he would mop the floor with Kerry or Bush in a debate, IMO. He'd got my vote come November.

I like Art Bell as much as the next guy, but anyone that campaigns on Coast to Coast AM is not my idea of a serious candidate.

[skidmark]

I continue to wonder in amazement why we can't get honest, respectable "leaders" to run for the office of President?

The answer is that honesty, respectability, and being a major party nominee with a real chance to achieve the presidency are not compatible.

Very, very true... its not just what they have to undergo though, its the fact that you will never hear of them.

[JackB1]

great Bush site (funny) for those who haven't seen it yet.
check out some of those audio quotes.


http://www.dubyaspeak.com/

[RiverRat]

You must have mentioned UN a dozen times.

I can't think of a single political voice on the Democratic side that has argued for a more international approach to solving the current problem that hasn't talked about going through the UN. And if going through the UN isn't necessary, as you suggest, please explain why the international coalition that was put together wasn't international enough.

[wco81]

I agree that Kerry's calls for more UN involvement isn't going to resonate with most Americans. Republicans have successfully villified the UN, which of course has problems.

But the UN is mostly a world forum and global relief organization. Unless another institution is created, it's the only thing we have for resolving conflicts through diplomacy rather than war. It's far more ineffectual than we'd like but is there really anything else? Anyways, someone pointed out, the UN isn't an entity like nations. It's more of an assembly hall.

Kerry isn't making the argument effectively enough that the War on Terror will require collaboration with other nations, including France and Germany and even Russia, which are among the top major powers after the US. These countries aren't part of the coalition in Iraq and they need to be because they have intelligence and police agencies whose cooperation our intelligence and police agencies need. That is why the US can't stake out on its own, trying to singlehandedly win this war.

Also, there must be a few military families who are tired of the fact that mostly Americans are dying in Iraq, whose connection to the war on terror is dubious.

[RiverRat]

Kerry isn't making the argument effectively enough that the War on Terror will require collaboration with other nations, including France and Germany and even Russia, which are among the top major powers after the US. These countries aren't part of the coalition in Iraq and they need to be because they have intelligence and police agencies whose cooperation our intelligence and police agencies need. That is why the US can't stake out on its own, trying to singlehandedly win this war.

Don't get me wrong here. I generally agree with this point. I believe that we have zero chance of winning the war on terror on our own, and even with the above listed help, I think our chances of decisively winning it for any length of time are pretty slim. I'm just trying to explain why Bush resonates on this issue as well as he does. You have to do something, even if your chances are slim. If you're going to try to do it with tanks, it's gonna have to be your tanks.

[kevinpars]

It's funny how outraged folks got over Clinton having some hollywood producers spend the night at the Whitehouse and yet these same people don't say a word when the person who sits next to the president's wife at the state of the union address turns out to be an Iranian spy. Gee, maybe our country shouldn't pay someone six figures a month and celebrate him as an Iraqi hero before the nation before doing a little background check.

And come to think of it, Clinton never risked US security by outing a CIA agent because he didn't like her husband's politics. Yeah, there has been no proof that Bush was involved with that, but he did speak to his lawyer about it.

I don't think our president or vice president believe in any values other than using the White House to help themselves and their friends maintain power and gain wealth. If they alienate half the countries in the free world while doing it, what the hell. What can they do about it?

[XXXIV]

You really didn't expect open and honest non-partisan discussion from this group, did you? I knew it wouldn't take long to fall apart.

Exactly the reason that I steer clear of these types of discussions...I better stop there....

This thread cannot go to a happy place

[skidmark]

...including France and Germany and even Russia, which are among the top major powers after the US.

France is amoung the top major powers? Give the rest of the world a bit more credit than that.

The "War on Terror" is definitely global in its scope, but many Americans stand bitterly against the UN because they see it as a threat to their freedoms. The UN is useless without any power, and dangerous with it.

Things like the ownership of private property and such tend to be sensitive issues.

[JRod]

Back to the topic at hand...

From the responses it seems that most that support Bush or at the least like the guy, like him for his character not his policy. Something that is also happening with Reagan. They like the guy because of his charimas, quick wit and having a heart in the right place but aren't too particular with his policies.

Anyway, it's always good to see how the other side thinks.

Now I still think if people were to learn a bit more about Bush and his policies they would be less supportive but then again getting anymore involved into politics isn't everyones cup of tea. So they just keep it simple rightly and wrongly.