You mean the ones where they compared Bush to Churchill, Lincoln and Reagan? With a straight face?
Do Bush-lovers really buy those comparisons? Do they have any inkling of history?
OT: The Swiftees
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
I did not see the speeches, but I also don't trust anything that McCain says about Bush with much sincerity.
They have been political enemies since the 2000 primaries, and it was reported at a number of places that McCain briefly entertained the vice-president spot on a Kerry ticket earlier this year.
McCain is trotted out at the convention because he's a war hero, which Bush is not, and that counters Kerry's role in the Vietnam War nicely, regardless of which version you believe. McCain also is respected by most as one of the more non-partisan members of the GOP, which also plays well as the Republicans look to placate the centrist faction of the party at this convention.
But I really don't think McCain fervently likes or believes in George Bush. A McCain speech about Bush reeks of politics, not true belief. It's not an indictment of McCain, though. He's just doing what the Ed Gillespie and the rest of the party hierarchy want him to do, to put on a brave face and praise the President.
On the other hand, I think Guiliani and Bush are pretty tight after enduring the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 together. I think Rudy really likes and supports President Bush, and I take his words about the President with sincerity.
It's funny: I would give the Republican Party consideration this fall if either McCain or Guiliani was the candidate. I think both are better suited for the job than the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Just my opinion, of course.
Take care,
PK
They have been political enemies since the 2000 primaries, and it was reported at a number of places that McCain briefly entertained the vice-president spot on a Kerry ticket earlier this year.
McCain is trotted out at the convention because he's a war hero, which Bush is not, and that counters Kerry's role in the Vietnam War nicely, regardless of which version you believe. McCain also is respected by most as one of the more non-partisan members of the GOP, which also plays well as the Republicans look to placate the centrist faction of the party at this convention.
But I really don't think McCain fervently likes or believes in George Bush. A McCain speech about Bush reeks of politics, not true belief. It's not an indictment of McCain, though. He's just doing what the Ed Gillespie and the rest of the party hierarchy want him to do, to put on a brave face and praise the President.
On the other hand, I think Guiliani and Bush are pretty tight after enduring the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 together. I think Rudy really likes and supports President Bush, and I take his words about the President with sincerity.
It's funny: I would give the Republican Party consideration this fall if either McCain or Guiliani was the candidate. I think both are better suited for the job than the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Just my opinion, of course.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
Apparently many of them seem to be able to buy the comparison.wco81 wrote:You mean the ones where they compared Bush to Churchill, Lincoln and Reagan? With a straight face?
Do Bush-lovers really buy those comparisons? Do they have any inkling of history?
Here's three quotations that seem to be appropriate in the aftermath of last night's nonsense.
"How you can win the population for war: At first, the statesman will invent cheap lying, that impute the guilt of the attacked nation, and each person will be happy over this deceit, that calm the conscience. It will study it detailed and refuse to test arguments of the other opinion. So he will convince step for step even therefrom that the war is just and thank God, that he, after this process of grotesque even deceit, can sleep better." Mark Twain
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them". George Orwell
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein
I seem to remember a quote from Mark Twain along the lines of 'patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel'. I'll have to see if I can find it.
EDIT: sorry, that last quotation was from Samuel Johnson in 1775.
Best wishes,
Doug
Last edited by dougb on Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I heard horrible stories about how Giuliani made life in NY horrible if you were poor, immigrant or black.
But he holds very moderate positions on most issues, definitely not the ideological conservative that Bush is (for that reason, he should forget any presidential aspirations because the South will no more support him than Kerry).
Giuliani repeated several Bush campaign lies, including linking Saddam to Bin Laden:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105912/
One of the lies was the subject of a dust up about a week ago:
Here is a link to the discussion and the actual video which the Bush campaign used to claim Kerry was the anti-war candidate:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5727982/
But Giuliani apparently wants to appeal to the hardcore, not the broad electorate, when he repeats this kind of lie.
But he holds very moderate positions on most issues, definitely not the ideological conservative that Bush is (for that reason, he should forget any presidential aspirations because the South will no more support him than Kerry).
Giuliani repeated several Bush campaign lies, including linking Saddam to Bin Laden:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105912/
One of the lies was the subject of a dust up about a week ago:
Here is a link to the discussion and the actual video which the Bush campaign used to claim Kerry was the anti-war candidate:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5727982/
The GOP continues with this lie. And if they were so sure this was a legitimate tactic, they wouldn't have limited to a web video ad or an ad distributed only to hardcore supporters.“I want to be perfectly fair here,” Chris Matthews told Dowd. “Eight million supporters of the president received a videotape. Do you think that was a fair cropping of what he had to say? You cut him off after he said, yes. And you did not let him continue on to say, ‘in the sense that I don‘t believe the president took to us war as he should have.’”
Matthews went further and asked Dowd to ask the president to stop claiming that Kerry “declared himself the anti-war candidate.” “Is the president going to keep saying that something that was said on this show wasn‘t said? Would you like to have your sentences cut down like to a third of their length and let people decide on the first three or four words what you meant by the 20 words? I think you guys should consider taking this off your loop. I think the president ought to be shown this tape so he knows what he‘s talking about, instead of having it fed to him by somebody who doesn‘t show them full sentence.”
But Giuliani apparently wants to appeal to the hardcore, not the broad electorate, when he repeats this kind of lie.
I lived in NYC during 1994-1997, and while the police certainly became more aggressive, there's no question in my mind that the city became a cleaner, safer place during his tenure. The actual criminals were much more of threat to the poor, immigrant, and minority populations than the police ever were. There were problems, to be sure (Abner Luima is a perfect example), but I really think Guiliani did a pretty amazing job with one of the most difficult cities to govern on earth.tealboy03 wrote:"I heard horrible stories about how Giuliani made life in NY horrible if you were poor, immigrant or black."
I once saw a monkey with four assholes...no, really...
Link to Michael Badnarik's radio interview.
I'm going to take this opportunity to give a shameless plug to an in-depth, and interesting radio interview of Libertatian party presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik. He appeared last night on Alex Merklinger's "Mysteries of the Mind", on the Millennium Radio network. I thought this was a great interview - Michael did an outstanding job of articulating the Liberatian party platform. As an added bonus, Michael demonstrated that he can think on his feet!
Anyway, here's a link to the streaming audio archive of the program which aired last night. Fast forward to ~33 minutes to get to Michael's introduction. You'll also probably want to skip the news (it's not really news, it's an editorial) at the top of each hour. BTW, this is a high quality audio stream... very easy to listen to!
http://www.mysteriesofthemind.com/Archi ... 040830.asx
PK, you'll get a kick out of what he says about a debate with Kerry & Bush at about 1:22 into the program! And he's dead right about it!!
BTW, I'm not going to argue that the Swiftees aren't being used as political players, even though they see themselves as something else. I shared the story that I did just to illustrate that there are veterans out there who genuinely reflect what the swiftees are saying on camera. Thankfully, my vote for president isn't hinged on whether Kerry's Purple Hearts are all deserved, or not.
Anyway, here's a link to the streaming audio archive of the program which aired last night. Fast forward to ~33 minutes to get to Michael's introduction. You'll also probably want to skip the news (it's not really news, it's an editorial) at the top of each hour. BTW, this is a high quality audio stream... very easy to listen to!
http://www.mysteriesofthemind.com/Archi ... 040830.asx
PK, you'll get a kick out of what he says about a debate with Kerry & Bush at about 1:22 into the program! And he's dead right about it!!
BTW, I'm not going to argue that the Swiftees aren't being used as political players, even though they see themselves as something else. I shared the story that I did just to illustrate that there are veterans out there who genuinely reflect what the swiftees are saying on camera. Thankfully, my vote for president isn't hinged on whether Kerry's Purple Hearts are all deserved, or not.
I don't understand what is the big to-do about thrid parties. Sure they present different ideas but all third parties in this country are extremist in their own way. And for those that say that the D and R are almost indistuigishable, you need to do some research.
Are parties influenced too much by big money. Absolutley. But in terms of ideology the parties aren't allowed to present big ideas mostly because a centrist message always wins. No many extreme right or left candidates win the seat. But other than how the party structure works and is funded there is very little the same in terms of ideology.
Lastly, one of the biggest reasons for the lack of a third party isn't so much the power of the big Two to make third party supports look crazy but the idea that America wants a majority President. Americans want a leader that is elected by a 50%+1 majority. Now that is a false 50+1 majority because in terms of regiestered voters out of the total population and then in terms of voters for each candidate its quite possible that this "majority" is only 25% of the population. However if you introduce a third party that means we get a 34% president. I don't think the American public is ready for that. Not because they aren't ready for a 3rd party but because they want a 50+1.
Also the American system isn't well suited to have more than two parties. Its just the structure of our electoral process. This isn't getting into debates or having to reach a percentage to get public money but this system seems to kill off all strong 3rd parties or have them assimilate into one of the larger parties.
And for those that really hate the Dems or Reps. There is hope, the Ds and Rs have not always been in existance. A strong 3rd party can succeed and probably will at one point. When the time comes, it will either integrate members of the other parties reverting back to a two party system or the other two parties will be able to kill it off again.
Are parties influenced too much by big money. Absolutley. But in terms of ideology the parties aren't allowed to present big ideas mostly because a centrist message always wins. No many extreme right or left candidates win the seat. But other than how the party structure works and is funded there is very little the same in terms of ideology.
Lastly, one of the biggest reasons for the lack of a third party isn't so much the power of the big Two to make third party supports look crazy but the idea that America wants a majority President. Americans want a leader that is elected by a 50%+1 majority. Now that is a false 50+1 majority because in terms of regiestered voters out of the total population and then in terms of voters for each candidate its quite possible that this "majority" is only 25% of the population. However if you introduce a third party that means we get a 34% president. I don't think the American public is ready for that. Not because they aren't ready for a 3rd party but because they want a 50+1.
Also the American system isn't well suited to have more than two parties. Its just the structure of our electoral process. This isn't getting into debates or having to reach a percentage to get public money but this system seems to kill off all strong 3rd parties or have them assimilate into one of the larger parties.
And for those that really hate the Dems or Reps. There is hope, the Ds and Rs have not always been in existance. A strong 3rd party can succeed and probably will at one point. When the time comes, it will either integrate members of the other parties reverting back to a two party system or the other two parties will be able to kill it off again.
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
>>>Lastly, one of the biggest reasons for the lack of a third party isn't so much the power of the big Two to make third party supports look crazy but the idea that America wants a majority President.<<<
John:
Good point, but there also are two other aspects of the American political system that really hurt third-party candidates: ballot access laws and debate policies.
It takes a ton of signatures in each state for a third-party candidate to be added to the ballot, and hardly any third-party candidates are allowed into the big network debates unless they have a lot of money (Perot) or a lot of name equity (Nader).
I think many voters might like to hear Michael Badnarik's message in a Presidential debate, especially considering I believe the Libertarian Party is the biggest third party. But it never will happen, so instead all of the third-party candidates are lumped together for a couple of debates on CSPAN.
That's a shame.
Take care,
PK
John:
Good point, but there also are two other aspects of the American political system that really hurt third-party candidates: ballot access laws and debate policies.
It takes a ton of signatures in each state for a third-party candidate to be added to the ballot, and hardly any third-party candidates are allowed into the big network debates unless they have a lot of money (Perot) or a lot of name equity (Nader).
I think many voters might like to hear Michael Badnarik's message in a Presidential debate, especially considering I believe the Libertarian Party is the biggest third party. But it never will happen, so instead all of the third-party candidates are lumped together for a couple of debates on CSPAN.
That's a shame.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
JRod writes:
"I don't understand what is the big to-do about thrid parties. Sure they present different ideas but all third parties in this country are extremist in their own way."
JRod, it's unfortunate that the majority of people in this country make what you are saying above true. The party I support (libertarian) base their ideology on the Constitution; yet somehow that's been twisted by the major parties and the mass media to be "extreme". I can't tell you how many times I've had my face washed with the popular bromide.... "you're only a Libertarian because you want to be able to smoke pot legally".... (sigh). Nothing could be further from the truth - I haven't smoked pot in 20 years, and I wouldn't start if it was legalized. But that's the kind of baggage the Libertarians have to overcome.
You do make an interesting point in saying that the public wants a true majority candidate as a winner, but we've gotten out of the last three (maybe 4 elections) without that being the case. We have an electoral process in place that deals with that.
I don't hate the Republicans and Democrats, but I think they have all become such apparatchiks that I don't think they can objectively make decisions that are in the best interest of the nation. We have a system of status quo, and that needs to be changed. It's not easy to make the changes that libertarianism will require, because more of the responisibility is on the citizenry. We've become so dependent on the federal gubment to take care of us that we're afraid of taking on that responisibility.... in my opinion.
You guys both need to hear Badnarik's response to Merkinger's question about why he's not admitted to the presidential debates. It actually comes closer to 1:23 into the program link above. BTW, this interview finally made my wife change her mind about libertarianism. She's been a staunch Republican all of her life, and she said that Badnarik makes so much sense, and demonstrates such clear leadership ability, that he's got her vote!
"I don't understand what is the big to-do about thrid parties. Sure they present different ideas but all third parties in this country are extremist in their own way."
JRod, it's unfortunate that the majority of people in this country make what you are saying above true. The party I support (libertarian) base their ideology on the Constitution; yet somehow that's been twisted by the major parties and the mass media to be "extreme". I can't tell you how many times I've had my face washed with the popular bromide.... "you're only a Libertarian because you want to be able to smoke pot legally".... (sigh). Nothing could be further from the truth - I haven't smoked pot in 20 years, and I wouldn't start if it was legalized. But that's the kind of baggage the Libertarians have to overcome.
You do make an interesting point in saying that the public wants a true majority candidate as a winner, but we've gotten out of the last three (maybe 4 elections) without that being the case. We have an electoral process in place that deals with that.
I don't hate the Republicans and Democrats, but I think they have all become such apparatchiks that I don't think they can objectively make decisions that are in the best interest of the nation. We have a system of status quo, and that needs to be changed. It's not easy to make the changes that libertarianism will require, because more of the responisibility is on the citizenry. We've become so dependent on the federal gubment to take care of us that we're afraid of taking on that responisibility.... in my opinion.
You guys both need to hear Badnarik's response to Merkinger's question about why he's not admitted to the presidential debates. It actually comes closer to 1:23 into the program link above. BTW, this interview finally made my wife change her mind about libertarianism. She's been a staunch Republican all of her life, and she said that Badnarik makes so much sense, and demonstrates such clear leadership ability, that he's got her vote!
I'm curious about the ballot laws and voter registration in the U.S. In Canada, federal elections are governed by federal law. Every province, and each electoral riding with those provinces, follows the same laws governing things such as voter registration and eligibility to be put on the ballot.
So I guess I'd like someone to explain to me why are electoral laws and ballots in U.S. national elections left to states and counties? Is there a provision in the constitution that explicitly outlines this?
Best wishes,
Doug
So I guess I'd like someone to explain to me why are electoral laws and ballots in U.S. national elections left to states and counties? Is there a provision in the constitution that explicitly outlines this?
Best wishes,
Doug
-
Cincinnati_Kid
- Starting 5
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Homosassa,Florida
there was some chatter earlier tonight about Rudy running in 08......i wonder if that would be against possibly Hillary (imagine thatpk500 wrote:
It's funny: I would give the Republican Party consideration this fall if either McCain or Guiliani was the candidate. I think both are better suited for the job than the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Just my opinion, of course.
Take care,
PK
)if President Bush stays in office
http://thecincinnatikid.blogspot.com
I totally agree. I just read Plan of Attack. I am one of those "undecided voters." I thought the book would be anti-Bush and really tip the scales, but there is really quite a bit in the book that is positive. Now, Cheney on the other hand...RandyM wrote:Second, I bought and read "Plan of Attack" in its entirety. What YOU are doing is selectively quoting as much negative crap as you can and omitting anything positive. There just is not enough room on this board to post all the positive things about the President that Woodward talked about, or the issues surrounding the intelligence on WMD's (the "slam dunk" George Tenet assured him that it was).
I advise anyone tempted to buy any of this selective quoting from PK go out and buy or borrow a copy of Plan of Attack and READ IT. I thought when I bought it that it might be an anti-Bush screed, and was pleasantly surprised to find it to be more balanced than I'd figured it would be. It's just that partisans on both sides (and PK has taken a "side" no matter how many times he boasts about his wonderful objectivity) can quote selectively from the book to prove anything they want to prove.
My only problem with both Libertarians and those like O'Reilly who say they are "independent" is how much arrogance they ooze. Their case is that they are objective analysts sitting above the fray. They are not "partisan" because they are not Democrat or Republican. The insinuation here is that Democrats and Republicans don't use gray matter to formulate opinion, they are just, hm, I believe someone here used the term "Party Apparatchiks".
It's this kind of elitism that really turns me off to both Libertarians and so-called independents. Their blood is just as red as mine, and they are every bit as susceptible to bias as anyone else. And EVERYONE has an ideology. It's just that those that don't line up well with the D & R parties seem to think that means that they are not ideological. The whole "unlike you, I'm objective" kind of tone, as you've seen, sets me off. Some people, like O'Reilly, whom I often agree with, simply decide arbitrarily to take NO position, or just try to go down the middle, to improve their standing as "independents".
As for libertarians specifically? There's a lot of sense in what they say, and if I thought one could actually be elected, I might be tempted to vote for one, particularly in peacetime. However I've also felt that with many (note: NOT ALL) liberterians I've spoken with, the best definition of what they are is: "a conservative without the guiding moral and/or religious principles". I'm not an "anything goes" kind of person. I think society has to set certain boundaries for acceptable social behavior, and most of the libertarians I know seem to believe in moral relativism.
But I do agree with Libertarians about the disastrous growth in the size of the government, and the need to stick closer to the constitution vis a vis individual liberty.
However, while I might have been prone to 'experiment' with my vote by voting Libertarian in a peacetime election, this is NOT a peacetime election. I don't think we have the luxury of voting for a 3rd party we know will not gain even 10% of the vote. I respect those that vote their conscience and I also lament the 2-party stranglehold on the system. But right now, I'm more worried about a shipping vessel showing up in Tampa's port (right near wear I work) and detonating a small nuke. I'm more worried that the terrorism Israel has seen with suicide bombers might somehow make it to our shores and make Americans afraid to go outside. Just look at what happened in Washington DC with the sniper attacks. An entire metropolitan area was afraid to go pump gas. And that was just two crazies with a rifle. The anthrax scare was also similar. It's not that a ton of people have to be wiped out. It's only that you do just enough that people believe they are in danger and begin living in fear. That's something I'm not willing to tolerate if it can be prevented. Bush has made his share of mistakes, but HIS idea of fighting a war against terrorism, in my judgement is clearly superior to Kerry's more Clinton/Carter defensive, 'measured response' approach. Even were I not aligned with Bush ideologically on more issues, I'd still vote for him on the basis of the fact that I do not believe we can entrust our national security to a man as poll-driven and 'nuanced' as John Kerry. We can't have him up there telling the terrorists "stop it or else" only to find out that the "or else" really means "or else I'll go convene a meeting with the French and wring my hands with them". (that'll scare 'em!)
I don't think we can afford to risk John Kerry as a President, and I don't think now is the time to experiment with trying to 'grow' the 3rd party vote.
That's just my personal assessment.
Randy
It's this kind of elitism that really turns me off to both Libertarians and so-called independents. Their blood is just as red as mine, and they are every bit as susceptible to bias as anyone else. And EVERYONE has an ideology. It's just that those that don't line up well with the D & R parties seem to think that means that they are not ideological. The whole "unlike you, I'm objective" kind of tone, as you've seen, sets me off. Some people, like O'Reilly, whom I often agree with, simply decide arbitrarily to take NO position, or just try to go down the middle, to improve their standing as "independents".
As for libertarians specifically? There's a lot of sense in what they say, and if I thought one could actually be elected, I might be tempted to vote for one, particularly in peacetime. However I've also felt that with many (note: NOT ALL) liberterians I've spoken with, the best definition of what they are is: "a conservative without the guiding moral and/or religious principles". I'm not an "anything goes" kind of person. I think society has to set certain boundaries for acceptable social behavior, and most of the libertarians I know seem to believe in moral relativism.
But I do agree with Libertarians about the disastrous growth in the size of the government, and the need to stick closer to the constitution vis a vis individual liberty.
However, while I might have been prone to 'experiment' with my vote by voting Libertarian in a peacetime election, this is NOT a peacetime election. I don't think we have the luxury of voting for a 3rd party we know will not gain even 10% of the vote. I respect those that vote their conscience and I also lament the 2-party stranglehold on the system. But right now, I'm more worried about a shipping vessel showing up in Tampa's port (right near wear I work) and detonating a small nuke. I'm more worried that the terrorism Israel has seen with suicide bombers might somehow make it to our shores and make Americans afraid to go outside. Just look at what happened in Washington DC with the sniper attacks. An entire metropolitan area was afraid to go pump gas. And that was just two crazies with a rifle. The anthrax scare was also similar. It's not that a ton of people have to be wiped out. It's only that you do just enough that people believe they are in danger and begin living in fear. That's something I'm not willing to tolerate if it can be prevented. Bush has made his share of mistakes, but HIS idea of fighting a war against terrorism, in my judgement is clearly superior to Kerry's more Clinton/Carter defensive, 'measured response' approach. Even were I not aligned with Bush ideologically on more issues, I'd still vote for him on the basis of the fact that I do not believe we can entrust our national security to a man as poll-driven and 'nuanced' as John Kerry. We can't have him up there telling the terrorists "stop it or else" only to find out that the "or else" really means "or else I'll go convene a meeting with the French and wring my hands with them". (that'll scare 'em!)
I don't think we can afford to risk John Kerry as a President, and I don't think now is the time to experiment with trying to 'grow' the 3rd party vote.
That's just my personal assessment.
Randy
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
>>>However I've also felt that with many (note: NOT ALL) liberterians I've spoken with, the best definition of what they are is: "a conservative without the guiding moral and/or religious principles". I'm not an "anything goes" kind of person. I think society has to set certain boundaries for acceptable social behavior, and most of the libertarians I know seem to believe in moral relativism.<<<
You must be meeting different libertarians than I. Sounds like you're tapping into the "all you want to do is smoke pot legally" faction that John C. mentioned in a prior post. I empathize John -- I hear the same crap all the time from people who think Libertarians are Woodstock-relic freaks.
If anything, I think Libertarians, in general, are more grounded in morality than those in the two "major" parties because all Libertarians that I know are driven by a strong sense of personal responsibility. In other words, we don't want government making personal decisions for us, and we don't want government interfering in our lives. We'll handle the responsibility, thanks, and the rewards and perils that accompany that responsibility.
That's an "anything goes" attitude? I think not. I think it's very moral, taking responsibility for one's actions and not relying on government to legislate or enforce one's behavior.
But all this talk of morality in a political discussion makes me sick. The sheer mention of "morality" in a political discussion rankles me probably even more than claims of "objectivity" from third-party devotees annoy you. Since when has morality been a political issue? Since when can you or SHOULD you legislate morality? That's one of my biggest beefs with the Republican Party, which proudly seems to include morality as a plank at every gathering.
Morality is a personal issue. It's an issue of upbringing. It's an issue of religion. It's not an issue of state or politics, although many Republicans think differently, and I find that reprehensible.
I'm not a moral person because I'm a Libertarian, just as my wife isn't a moral person because she's a strident Republican. We're moral people because we were raised properly and both have faith in a higher power as a central part of our lives.
Politics and association with a political party have ZERO to do with it.
Finally, why is my vote for Michael Badnarik, who I think can do a better job on every issue than Bush or Kerry, an "experimental" vote? Why is a vote for a platform that I support more than either the Republican or Democratic platform an "experimental" vote?
That reeks of elitism just as much as any perceived noble objectivity that you see in Libertarians.
Take care,
PK
You must be meeting different libertarians than I. Sounds like you're tapping into the "all you want to do is smoke pot legally" faction that John C. mentioned in a prior post. I empathize John -- I hear the same crap all the time from people who think Libertarians are Woodstock-relic freaks.
If anything, I think Libertarians, in general, are more grounded in morality than those in the two "major" parties because all Libertarians that I know are driven by a strong sense of personal responsibility. In other words, we don't want government making personal decisions for us, and we don't want government interfering in our lives. We'll handle the responsibility, thanks, and the rewards and perils that accompany that responsibility.
That's an "anything goes" attitude? I think not. I think it's very moral, taking responsibility for one's actions and not relying on government to legislate or enforce one's behavior.
But all this talk of morality in a political discussion makes me sick. The sheer mention of "morality" in a political discussion rankles me probably even more than claims of "objectivity" from third-party devotees annoy you. Since when has morality been a political issue? Since when can you or SHOULD you legislate morality? That's one of my biggest beefs with the Republican Party, which proudly seems to include morality as a plank at every gathering.
Morality is a personal issue. It's an issue of upbringing. It's an issue of religion. It's not an issue of state or politics, although many Republicans think differently, and I find that reprehensible.
I'm not a moral person because I'm a Libertarian, just as my wife isn't a moral person because she's a strident Republican. We're moral people because we were raised properly and both have faith in a higher power as a central part of our lives.
Politics and association with a political party have ZERO to do with it.
Finally, why is my vote for Michael Badnarik, who I think can do a better job on every issue than Bush or Kerry, an "experimental" vote? Why is a vote for a platform that I support more than either the Republican or Democratic platform an "experimental" vote?
That reeks of elitism just as much as any perceived noble objectivity that you see in Libertarians.
Take care,
PK
Last edited by pk500 on Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:58 am, edited 3 times in total.
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
I think you vote for whomever you want to vote for. The great logic of "we are at war" is that, seeing as terrorism will never really go away, we will always be at war. It's like saying "we are at war" in the war on drugs. The clocks are striking thirteen.
I don't have any illusions about how ruthless the terrorists are. But whipping your schlong out and trying to beat them senseless with it (aka the "non-nuanced approach") doesn't always work. Look at Russia, they're response to Chechnyan terrorism has generally been far more aggressive than what we've been doing, and it hasn't done jack squat in terms of stopping terror attacks.
As for Kerry's "nuanced" approach, if his "Coalition of the Willing" means "A Coalition of the Willing Who Will Offer More Than a Laurel and Hearty Handshake," I'm all for it. You can talk about 50 nations or 60 nations or whatever, the vast majority of the red and green paying for this war is ours. We absolutely had the world 100% behind us after 9/11, and somehow our Great MisCommunicator screwed that up by deciding that Iraq>Afghanistan and Hussein>bin Laden. I was willing to put my differences aside and support Bush up until Iraq. That is the fork in the road that started dividing this country, not the Michael Moores or the Richard Clarkes or any other scapegoat the GOP targets with the anti-American bleating.
I don't have any illusions about how ruthless the terrorists are. But whipping your schlong out and trying to beat them senseless with it (aka the "non-nuanced approach") doesn't always work. Look at Russia, they're response to Chechnyan terrorism has generally been far more aggressive than what we've been doing, and it hasn't done jack squat in terms of stopping terror attacks.
As for Kerry's "nuanced" approach, if his "Coalition of the Willing" means "A Coalition of the Willing Who Will Offer More Than a Laurel and Hearty Handshake," I'm all for it. You can talk about 50 nations or 60 nations or whatever, the vast majority of the red and green paying for this war is ours. We absolutely had the world 100% behind us after 9/11, and somehow our Great MisCommunicator screwed that up by deciding that Iraq>Afghanistan and Hussein>bin Laden. I was willing to put my differences aside and support Bush up until Iraq. That is the fork in the road that started dividing this country, not the Michael Moores or the Richard Clarkes or any other scapegoat the GOP targets with the anti-American bleating.
-
pk500
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 33887
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
- Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
- Contact:
>>>I was willing to put my differences aside and support Bush up until Iraq.<<<
Agreed! I was a huge supporter of Bush immediately after Sept. 11, 2001. I thought his bedside manner toward the victims and survivors immediately after the attacks was tremendous, and his resolve to find Bin Laden and crush Al Queda in Afghanistan was great.
I was and still am a big supporter of military action in Afghanistan and against proven Al Queda links, of which Hussein and Iraq are neither.
I'm a firm believer in retaliating against those who attacked us Sept. 11, but I'm firmly against starting wars because we feel like it, regardless of whether the root was bad intelligence or not, which was the case in Iraq.
Iraq also was the fork in the road for me with Bush. And I'm way too far down the other road to ever reach a junction and support Bush again.
Take care,
PK
Agreed! I was a huge supporter of Bush immediately after Sept. 11, 2001. I thought his bedside manner toward the victims and survivors immediately after the attacks was tremendous, and his resolve to find Bin Laden and crush Al Queda in Afghanistan was great.
I was and still am a big supporter of military action in Afghanistan and against proven Al Queda links, of which Hussein and Iraq are neither.
I'm a firm believer in retaliating against those who attacked us Sept. 11, but I'm firmly against starting wars because we feel like it, regardless of whether the root was bad intelligence or not, which was the case in Iraq.
Iraq also was the fork in the road for me with Bush. And I'm way too far down the other road to ever reach a junction and support Bush again.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425
"I'm not a moral person because I'm a Libertarian, just as my wife isn't a moral person because she's a strident Republican. We're moral people because we were raised properly and both have faith in a higher power as a central part of our lives.
Politics and association with a political party have ZERO to do with it."
PK:
Quit it, man!! We can't have people in here thinking we're on the same page! Seriously, great point, I heartily agree...BTW, how do you two sleep together?! A republican and a "weed activist"?? Your kids are gonna be screwed up, man...
Politics and association with a political party have ZERO to do with it."
PK:
Quit it, man!! We can't have people in here thinking we're on the same page! Seriously, great point, I heartily agree...BTW, how do you two sleep together?! A republican and a "weed activist"?? Your kids are gonna be screwed up, man...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
Swift Boats and Double Standards
Why aren't the media scrutinizing lawyers and advisers to Kerry?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug31.html
By Benjamin L. Ginsberg
Wednesday, September 1, 2004; Page A19
Think you're getting unbiased, balanced coverage of politics? Or is there a double standard in the way the media treat Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives? My recent visit to the center of a media storm suggests there is. Consider this:
A $500,000 ad buy made by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth brings searing media scrutiny and "proof" of illegal coordination based on a lawyer (me) representing both the Bush-Cheney campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans; on an accountant working for Tom DeLay's political action committee; and on a $200,000 contributor to the group who is not a major donor to Bush-Cheney 2004 but who does know Karl Rove.
Meanwhile, the media give practically no scrutiny to a $63 million, five-month, negative-ad buy done by Democratic "527" groups (the Media Fund, MoveOn.org and others) with a revolving door of connections to the Kerry campaign. Consider:
• Kerry campaign lawyer Bob Bauer and Democratic National Committee counsel Joe Sandler also represent 527s -- not illegal, but doesn't it deserve a little scrutiny?
• Jim Jordan, John Kerry's campaign manager until last November, works for three of the 527s.
• Harold Ickes, an executive committee member of the Democratic National Committee, heads the Media Fund.
• Bill Richardson simultaneously chaired the Democrats' national convention and a 527.
• Michael Meehan became Kerry's spokesman after running NARAL Pro-Choice America's "soft money" programs.
• Zack Exley went from being a MoveOn.org executive to the Kerry campaign.
The coordination law prohibits individuals from "using or conveying" information on the private "plans, needs or projects" of a campaign to a 527 or vice versa. If the media can scrutinize my legal work, which doesn't even fall under the anti-coordination rules, why can't they scrutinize these Democrats with equal diligence?
Bob Perry has been criticized and scrutinized for giving $200,000 to the group questioning Kerry's claims about his Vietnam service and for knowing Rove. But does anyone in the media see a double standard in the lack of reporting on the far more direct connections among major Kerry-Edwards fundraisers who have contributed to their 527s? These include:
• Fred Baron, chairman of Kerry Victory 2004, who gave $50,000 to Richardson's 527.
• Stephen Bing, John Edwards's top donor, who contributed $8 million to 527s.
• Susie Buell, Kerry vice chairman, who raised more than $100,000 for the campaign and gave more than $1 million to 527s.
• Lewis Cullman, a major DNC donor who raised more than $100,000 for the Democratic Party and gave $1.65 million to 527s.
The point isn't that they -- any more than Bob Perry -- have done anything illegal or improper. But the connections of these Democratic donors are far more direct than Perry's -- and there's been no similar media scrutiny for ad buys 126 times greater than the one Perry helped fund. If the media clamor that President Bush renounce the $500,000 Swift boat ad is fair, how many reporters asked Kerry whether he would request his 527s to cease their $63 million in negative ads? Also, wouldn't an unbiased press corps have gotten John Edwards to release his list of major fundraisers, as the Bush-Cheney campaign voluntarily did?
When the Bush-Cheney campaign filed a detailed, 70-page complaint detailing illegal coordination by Democrats, the move produced 14 news articles, with no follow-up. When the Kerry campaign filed an unsupportable charge of coordination about the Swift boat ads, there were 74 articles, and the pack swarmed.
Perhaps the reason is that, politically and culturally, reporters are far from representative of the voters or politicians they claim to cover objectively and fairly, as shown in a study by the Pew Research Center. That study concluded that "journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. . . . [N]ews people, especially national journalists, are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public. . . . About a third of national journalists (34 percent) . . . describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19 percent of the public. . . . Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7 percent of national news people . . . describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans."
In a 50-50 nation, how do the media square this imbalance with the claim of being objective, fair and nonpartisan? The double standard in reporting on 527s suggests that some of the withering scrutiny visited on the Swift boat veterans should be directed inward.
Why aren't the media scrutinizing lawyers and advisers to Kerry?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug31.html
By Benjamin L. Ginsberg
Wednesday, September 1, 2004; Page A19
Think you're getting unbiased, balanced coverage of politics? Or is there a double standard in the way the media treat Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives? My recent visit to the center of a media storm suggests there is. Consider this:
A $500,000 ad buy made by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth brings searing media scrutiny and "proof" of illegal coordination based on a lawyer (me) representing both the Bush-Cheney campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans; on an accountant working for Tom DeLay's political action committee; and on a $200,000 contributor to the group who is not a major donor to Bush-Cheney 2004 but who does know Karl Rove.
Meanwhile, the media give practically no scrutiny to a $63 million, five-month, negative-ad buy done by Democratic "527" groups (the Media Fund, MoveOn.org and others) with a revolving door of connections to the Kerry campaign. Consider:
• Kerry campaign lawyer Bob Bauer and Democratic National Committee counsel Joe Sandler also represent 527s -- not illegal, but doesn't it deserve a little scrutiny?
• Jim Jordan, John Kerry's campaign manager until last November, works for three of the 527s.
• Harold Ickes, an executive committee member of the Democratic National Committee, heads the Media Fund.
• Bill Richardson simultaneously chaired the Democrats' national convention and a 527.
• Michael Meehan became Kerry's spokesman after running NARAL Pro-Choice America's "soft money" programs.
• Zack Exley went from being a MoveOn.org executive to the Kerry campaign.
The coordination law prohibits individuals from "using or conveying" information on the private "plans, needs or projects" of a campaign to a 527 or vice versa. If the media can scrutinize my legal work, which doesn't even fall under the anti-coordination rules, why can't they scrutinize these Democrats with equal diligence?
Bob Perry has been criticized and scrutinized for giving $200,000 to the group questioning Kerry's claims about his Vietnam service and for knowing Rove. But does anyone in the media see a double standard in the lack of reporting on the far more direct connections among major Kerry-Edwards fundraisers who have contributed to their 527s? These include:
• Fred Baron, chairman of Kerry Victory 2004, who gave $50,000 to Richardson's 527.
• Stephen Bing, John Edwards's top donor, who contributed $8 million to 527s.
• Susie Buell, Kerry vice chairman, who raised more than $100,000 for the campaign and gave more than $1 million to 527s.
• Lewis Cullman, a major DNC donor who raised more than $100,000 for the Democratic Party and gave $1.65 million to 527s.
The point isn't that they -- any more than Bob Perry -- have done anything illegal or improper. But the connections of these Democratic donors are far more direct than Perry's -- and there's been no similar media scrutiny for ad buys 126 times greater than the one Perry helped fund. If the media clamor that President Bush renounce the $500,000 Swift boat ad is fair, how many reporters asked Kerry whether he would request his 527s to cease their $63 million in negative ads? Also, wouldn't an unbiased press corps have gotten John Edwards to release his list of major fundraisers, as the Bush-Cheney campaign voluntarily did?
When the Bush-Cheney campaign filed a detailed, 70-page complaint detailing illegal coordination by Democrats, the move produced 14 news articles, with no follow-up. When the Kerry campaign filed an unsupportable charge of coordination about the Swift boat ads, there were 74 articles, and the pack swarmed.
Perhaps the reason is that, politically and culturally, reporters are far from representative of the voters or politicians they claim to cover objectively and fairly, as shown in a study by the Pew Research Center. That study concluded that "journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. . . . [N]ews people, especially national journalists, are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public. . . . About a third of national journalists (34 percent) . . . describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19 percent of the public. . . . Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7 percent of national news people . . . describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans."
In a 50-50 nation, how do the media square this imbalance with the claim of being objective, fair and nonpartisan? The double standard in reporting on 527s suggests that some of the withering scrutiny visited on the Swift boat veterans should be directed inward.
All the talk about how 260+ veterans likely aren't wrong and about all the affadavits...well, looks like at least two of the veterans on the Swift Vets for the Truth list NEVER signed the Swift Vets Against Kerry document, even though the Swift Vet site has them as signing it.
Link
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/ar ... 4209990015
Link
And as for the affadavits...Swift boat veteran Bob Anderson of Columbus is ticked.
It bothers him that Sen. John Kerry's swift boat history has become such a political hot potato. But he's even more irritated that his name was included - without his permission - on a letter used to discredit Kerry.
"I'm pretty nonpolitical," the 56-year-old Anderson said Tuesday. So, when he found out last week that his name was one of about 300 signed on a letter questioning Kerry's service, he was "flabbergasted."
"It's kind of like stealing my identity," said Anderson, who spent a year on a swift boat as an engine man and gunner.
The letter, which was posted on the Swift Boat Veter-ans for Truth Web site, claims the Demo-cratic presidential candidate has "grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that (Vietnam) war."
The letter also criticizes Kerry for trying to change his image from a critic of the war to a war hero.
"After reading the letter," Anderson said, "it kind of got under my skin. I had never come across a situation where someone used my name without my support or approval. It's not a very comforting feeling."
.....
Wedge, 60, of Mesquite, Nev., said his name, too, was on the list - and he's mad.
"This is the fourth or fifth time someone has called me or e-mailed me in regard to signing this damn letter," he wrote in an e-mail to Anderson. "I don't agree with it and want no part of it and especially don't want my name on it."
Both men have tried to contact the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to have their names removed from the list. Neither have had any success.
"I can't seem to get a response when I reply to their e-mail," Wedge said.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/ar ... 4209990015
Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.
"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life."
Blueduke,
Umm you can't be serious putting an article up by Benjamin Ginsberg. If this is the same man than he is a lawyer for the Swiftees and Bush legal advisor.
I'm sure there is some truth to what he has to say but he's not the source you want to quote.
Let's just say that Rove and Bush are behind at the very least getting money to Swiftboats and advising them on how to make it hit hard to Kerry. With that said, the reason why no one really going after Bush in quite the same manner. The pro-Kerry people are seen by many as just biased politicos. When you add the word veteran somehow the magical veil of truth gets injected into everything. Because men died for one's country somehow they are above fray of plain old politics. Couple this the shock value of attacking a veteran and this is way its such a big deal for the Bush side. Not only that but Kerry's people did make a weeks' worth of evidence associating the Swiftees with Bush. It worked well as 47% of polled Americans think that the Swiftees are close and directed by the Bush Campaign. In the end, the Swiftees will change the face of the election for the next month to come if anything doesn't preside over it.
The attacks have come to early to send Kerry packing and probably would have been more devestating in the first weeks of October. When Kerry would have little time to get the media of the swiftees.
The second wave of attacks for Kerry will come in the following weeks as they shift to Kerry postwar actions. It will be a very hard campaign for Kerry until the debates. I think at the debates we'll see the electorate start to move one way or another.
Umm you can't be serious putting an article up by Benjamin Ginsberg. If this is the same man than he is a lawyer for the Swiftees and Bush legal advisor.
I'm sure there is some truth to what he has to say but he's not the source you want to quote.
Let's just say that Rove and Bush are behind at the very least getting money to Swiftboats and advising them on how to make it hit hard to Kerry. With that said, the reason why no one really going after Bush in quite the same manner. The pro-Kerry people are seen by many as just biased politicos. When you add the word veteran somehow the magical veil of truth gets injected into everything. Because men died for one's country somehow they are above fray of plain old politics. Couple this the shock value of attacking a veteran and this is way its such a big deal for the Bush side. Not only that but Kerry's people did make a weeks' worth of evidence associating the Swiftees with Bush. It worked well as 47% of polled Americans think that the Swiftees are close and directed by the Bush Campaign. In the end, the Swiftees will change the face of the election for the next month to come if anything doesn't preside over it.
The attacks have come to early to send Kerry packing and probably would have been more devestating in the first weeks of October. When Kerry would have little time to get the media of the swiftees.
The second wave of attacks for Kerry will come in the following weeks as they shift to Kerry postwar actions. It will be a very hard campaign for Kerry until the debates. I think at the debates we'll see the electorate start to move one way or another.
[quote="pk500]That's an "anything goes" attitude? I think not. I think it's very moral, taking responsibility for one's actions and not relying on government to legislate or enforce one's behavior.[/quote]
How far are you willing to go on that? Are you going to go so far as to say that since everyone gets to decide right and wrong for themselves, we should just abolish laws and punishment and not have any? After all, our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian morality that's been handed down through the generations. If you take what you are saying to it's logical conclusion, government has no right to make or enforce laws, since laws are by definition based upon a common definition of right and wrong. And if you do NOT take it to its logical conclusion, then you are drawing a line someplace. And why is the line that you draw any better than the line someone else would draw? The way you describe it sounds like you'd have a small pocket of very moral libertarians living in anarchy. No matter what line you draw, the inescapable fact is that you are going to be drawing a line, which conflicts with SOMEONE's relative morality that says they can do what they want.
>> Since when has morality been a political issue? Since when can you or SHOULD you legislate morality? >>
Newsflash: This country was founded upon "legislated morality". Read "The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson", the Federalist papers and the other documents which make up the thoughts and philosophies behind this country. This country was not found on "everyone just follow their own personal morality".
>> Morality is a personal issue. >>
If that is true, then morality is relative, and therefore society has no right to impose any limits on anyone's behavior. I've often heard the rebuttal that "my freedom stops where yours starts", but you can't truly insulate everyone from everyone else. Your decisions, for better or worse, are usually going to impact other people.
>> It's an issue of upbringing. It's an issue of religion. It's not an issue of state or politics, although many Republicans think differently, and I find that reprehensible.>>
Then you would find the writings and beliefs of the people who wrote our founding documents equally reprehensible. In which case, I'm not sure America is the right country for you ideally.
>> I'm not a moral person because I'm a Libertarian, just as my wife isn't a moral person because she's a strident Republican. We're moral people because we were raised properly and both have faith in a higher power as a central part of our lives. >>
Party loyalty should absolutely drop way down on the list compared to one's faith, I believe that as well. I would more eagerly call myself a conservative than a Republican, since the former is a worldview, and the latter is a political party/organization.
>> That reeks of elitism just as much as any perceived noble objectivity that you see in Libertarians.>>
Just pragmatism. Idealism aside, you know and I know, from the polls if from nothing else, that your candidate is a footnote in this election. It's a 'conscience vote' and I respect that. But it's also not a pragmatic vote in that you basically cede the decision as to who will ACTUALLY win to others. If you truly think Kerry and Bush are one and the same as far as who will protect this nation, then you're doing the right thing. But I, for one, do not believe that Kerry will look for the best interests of this country, so I have to support Bush. (FWIW, I voted Perot in 1992, so I've not been party-line voter).
Randy
How far are you willing to go on that? Are you going to go so far as to say that since everyone gets to decide right and wrong for themselves, we should just abolish laws and punishment and not have any? After all, our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian morality that's been handed down through the generations. If you take what you are saying to it's logical conclusion, government has no right to make or enforce laws, since laws are by definition based upon a common definition of right and wrong. And if you do NOT take it to its logical conclusion, then you are drawing a line someplace. And why is the line that you draw any better than the line someone else would draw? The way you describe it sounds like you'd have a small pocket of very moral libertarians living in anarchy. No matter what line you draw, the inescapable fact is that you are going to be drawing a line, which conflicts with SOMEONE's relative morality that says they can do what they want.
>> Since when has morality been a political issue? Since when can you or SHOULD you legislate morality? >>
Newsflash: This country was founded upon "legislated morality". Read "The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson", the Federalist papers and the other documents which make up the thoughts and philosophies behind this country. This country was not found on "everyone just follow their own personal morality".
>> Morality is a personal issue. >>
If that is true, then morality is relative, and therefore society has no right to impose any limits on anyone's behavior. I've often heard the rebuttal that "my freedom stops where yours starts", but you can't truly insulate everyone from everyone else. Your decisions, for better or worse, are usually going to impact other people.
>> It's an issue of upbringing. It's an issue of religion. It's not an issue of state or politics, although many Republicans think differently, and I find that reprehensible.>>
Then you would find the writings and beliefs of the people who wrote our founding documents equally reprehensible. In which case, I'm not sure America is the right country for you ideally.
>> I'm not a moral person because I'm a Libertarian, just as my wife isn't a moral person because she's a strident Republican. We're moral people because we were raised properly and both have faith in a higher power as a central part of our lives. >>
Party loyalty should absolutely drop way down on the list compared to one's faith, I believe that as well. I would more eagerly call myself a conservative than a Republican, since the former is a worldview, and the latter is a political party/organization.
>> That reeks of elitism just as much as any perceived noble objectivity that you see in Libertarians.>>
Just pragmatism. Idealism aside, you know and I know, from the polls if from nothing else, that your candidate is a footnote in this election. It's a 'conscience vote' and I respect that. But it's also not a pragmatic vote in that you basically cede the decision as to who will ACTUALLY win to others. If you truly think Kerry and Bush are one and the same as far as who will protect this nation, then you're doing the right thing. But I, for one, do not believe that Kerry will look for the best interests of this country, so I have to support Bush. (FWIW, I voted Perot in 1992, so I've not been party-line voter).
Randy
>>Let's just say that Rove and Bush are behind at the very least getting money to Swiftboats and advising them on how to make it hit hard to Kerry.>>
I'm open to any evidence that you can present that Rove and Bush had any direct knowledge or involvement with "getting money to boats and advising them". Any evidence at all?
Randy
I'm open to any evidence that you can present that Rove and Bush had any direct knowledge or involvement with "getting money to boats and advising them". Any evidence at all?
Randy
>> We absolutely had the world 100% behind us after 9/11, and somehow our Great MisCommunicator screwed that up by deciding that Iraq>Afghanistan and Hussein>bin Laden.>>
Do you really believe that the world was really 100% behind us? Do you think that all Anti-American sentiment just evaporated in the smoke rising from the hole where the WTC stood? I don't. The French in particular have detested us from their 'culturally superior' position in Old Europe for a very long time. It didn't just happen. When Reagan bombed Libya in return for the bombing of the disco in Germany, our planes had to fly the long way around France to get there, because we couldn't secure permission to fly over their airspace. I don't believe France has ever truly been behind us. I think what you saw on 9/11 was that America was for the first time: "the victim". And that's the way many countries in the world wanted us to remain. Not unlike the way the tables were turned against Israel. When it was Jews being persecuted and fleeing the holocaust of Europe, to re-establish a state in what is now Israel, the world was all for them. The world loves victims, and envies and hates victors. The US as the world's strongest Super Power is a painful reminder to "old europe" that they no longer call the shots in the world economy or make the big military decisions. They've hated us for assuming a position they wanted for themselves. The EU itself is Europe's answer to the United States. An attempt to unite and try to supplant us as a "super power". So on 9/11 we were victims, and they cried their crocodile tears and paid lip service to us.
But what was Afghanistan doing for France? Was it funneling billions of dollars to these governments skimming off an oil for food program? Did the Taliban and the French and Germans have connections in violations of UN Sanctions? No. The French were fine with us in the war on Afghanistan, but I don't see you how can argue convincingly that this was based upon principle or some love of the USA. It was pragmatic and based upon self interest (or lack thereof). Among the discoveries in Iraq were documents and late model French weaponry. The oil-for-food program shows that France was on the take. They were pressing for dropping of sanctions on Iraq...they were, in short, CHEATING. So what do you EXPECT them to say when suddenly we say we are going to go in. Not only do we threaten to interrupt their 'good thing going' with Saddam, but we also threaten to expose their financial ties to Hussein. So they opposed us. Not out of principle or peace-loving attitudes, but out of their own self-interest. Fine. That's the way they want it, and that's the way they got it.
But I don't buy for a moment that the countries that opposed us in Iraq were TRULY 100% on our side after 9/11. They shed crocodile tears for us while secretly being a little happy that the 'king of the hill' got knocked down a peg. That's the story of the history of the world. Whoever is on top is envied and hated by elements that feel THEY should be on top, and France has always occupied that position where they felt THEY should be running the show, and as grateful as they are for what we did for them in WWII, they also detest the fact that someone had to come and pull their bacon out of the fire, and they resent us for it.
Randy
Do you really believe that the world was really 100% behind us? Do you think that all Anti-American sentiment just evaporated in the smoke rising from the hole where the WTC stood? I don't. The French in particular have detested us from their 'culturally superior' position in Old Europe for a very long time. It didn't just happen. When Reagan bombed Libya in return for the bombing of the disco in Germany, our planes had to fly the long way around France to get there, because we couldn't secure permission to fly over their airspace. I don't believe France has ever truly been behind us. I think what you saw on 9/11 was that America was for the first time: "the victim". And that's the way many countries in the world wanted us to remain. Not unlike the way the tables were turned against Israel. When it was Jews being persecuted and fleeing the holocaust of Europe, to re-establish a state in what is now Israel, the world was all for them. The world loves victims, and envies and hates victors. The US as the world's strongest Super Power is a painful reminder to "old europe" that they no longer call the shots in the world economy or make the big military decisions. They've hated us for assuming a position they wanted for themselves. The EU itself is Europe's answer to the United States. An attempt to unite and try to supplant us as a "super power". So on 9/11 we were victims, and they cried their crocodile tears and paid lip service to us.
But what was Afghanistan doing for France? Was it funneling billions of dollars to these governments skimming off an oil for food program? Did the Taliban and the French and Germans have connections in violations of UN Sanctions? No. The French were fine with us in the war on Afghanistan, but I don't see you how can argue convincingly that this was based upon principle or some love of the USA. It was pragmatic and based upon self interest (or lack thereof). Among the discoveries in Iraq were documents and late model French weaponry. The oil-for-food program shows that France was on the take. They were pressing for dropping of sanctions on Iraq...they were, in short, CHEATING. So what do you EXPECT them to say when suddenly we say we are going to go in. Not only do we threaten to interrupt their 'good thing going' with Saddam, but we also threaten to expose their financial ties to Hussein. So they opposed us. Not out of principle or peace-loving attitudes, but out of their own self-interest. Fine. That's the way they want it, and that's the way they got it.
But I don't buy for a moment that the countries that opposed us in Iraq were TRULY 100% on our side after 9/11. They shed crocodile tears for us while secretly being a little happy that the 'king of the hill' got knocked down a peg. That's the story of the history of the world. Whoever is on top is envied and hated by elements that feel THEY should be on top, and France has always occupied that position where they felt THEY should be running the show, and as grateful as they are for what we did for them in WWII, they also detest the fact that someone had to come and pull their bacon out of the fire, and they resent us for it.
Randy
-
FatPitcher
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am
So patriotism is bad, unless you're attacking Max Cleland's.dougb wrote:Apparently many of them seem to be able to buy the comparison.wco81 wrote:You mean the ones where they compared Bush to Churchill, Lincoln and Reagan? With a straight face?
Do Bush-lovers really buy those comparisons? Do they have any inkling of history?
Here's three quotations that seem to be appropriate in the aftermath of last night's nonsense.
"How you can win the population for war: At first, the statesman will invent cheap lying, that impute the guilt of the attacked nation, and each person will be happy over this deceit, that calm the conscience. It will study it detailed and refuse to test arguments of the other opinion. So he will convince step for step even therefrom that the war is just and thank God, that he, after this process of grotesque even deceit, can sleep better." Mark Twain
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them". George Orwell
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein
I seem to remember a quote from Mark Twain along the lines of 'patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel'. I'll have to see if I can find it.
EDIT: sorry, that last quotation was from Samuel Johnson in 1775.
Best wishes,
Doug
I think jingoism is dangerous, but this "hate America" rubbish is wearing thin.
And to respond to a different post, I disagree that the swift boat guys are tied to the Bush campaign in any way. They got their initial funding from 2 places: themselves and a friend of O'Neill's. Politics in Texas is all about the good-ol'-boy network, so it's not surprising that these guys hooked up. Now they have taken in $2 million from 40,000 donors.
If they really were connected to the GOP, the timing and message of their ads would have been better (ad #2 - mid october. ad #1 - late october, #3 and #4 not at all), and they would have had some serious cash to throw into those ads. And any incidental connections such as the lawyer and the campaign volunteer would have been non-existent.
The only reason the media has been harping on the connections is that Kerry's campaign wants them to. One day after Kerry's campaign revealed their defense strategy (these are just GOP hacks), the NYT was parroting it with a 6-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon style "web of connections". And never mind that Joe Sandler, the lawyer for moveon.org and the DNC, said that organizations sharing lawyers was not a sign of collaboration. If it's repeated long and loud enough, people will believe it. Right, Jrod?