Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bert—
There has never been, nor shall there ever been any doubt in my mind that G.W. Bush is unfit for command, and that he is singularly unfit to be President of our nation. It is so very obvious to the reflective, critical thinker that Bush is unfit, not worthy, under qualified, unprepared, and not intellectually curios enough, nor wise enough to be President of the world remaining Superpower. He is but a puppet, a shallow man, a born again Christian who practices his faith without real conviction or purpose.

History has proven that second-rate men like Bush make terrible leaders; they just lack the right stuff. It is a continual source of irritation and dismay that those on the Right stand behind this obviously flawed man. His puppet masters I can understand, they are motivated by unrelenting self interest, but the average Republican American I do not. Or perhaps I do, they are motivated by self interest as well informed by greed and a lack of true understanding of our Constitution.

“Or perhaps I do, they are motivated by self interest as well informed by greed and a lack of true understanding of our Constitution.” What does that mean?

I am sick of this liberal arrogance. Democrats assert that they somehow represent “THE PEOPLE” against the selfish conservatives. A great Republican president said, you can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Presumably, “the people” outnumber the fat cats. How is it then that the people don’t vote overwhelmingly for Democrats? Ronald Reagan garnered 54,166,829 votes in 1984. No Democrat has come close. Bill Clinton managed only 47,402359 and that was twelve years later when there were more Americans eligible to vote for him. Republicans hold the Senate, the House and they are likely to win the presidency again in November. When you tally all the votes at all levels of government, more people vote Republican than Democrat in American elections and they have been doing that for about twenty years. All these people can’t be greedy, selfish or stupid for so long a time. Surely they would have seen the light by now if there were light to see. To believe otherwise is to have no faith in democracy. If all government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, the Republicans have passed the test. The Democrats have too, by the way. Both represent nearly equal numbers of “the people”. We are talking about elections the world’s second oldest living democracy and a Constitution that is 217 years old next week. We know how to do these things, whether it seems like it or not in the short run. Stop with the apocalyptical talk already.

Mr. Martin, I disagree with your statement, “It is so very obvious to the reflective, critical thinker that Bush is unfit, not worthy, under qualified, unprepared, and not intellectually curios enough, nor wise enough to be President of the world remaining Superpower.”

Your statement implies that anyone who does not agree with your statement is not reflective, and not a critical thinker. There are a host of educated and renowned authors who have profited handsomely from quite contrary points of view and conclusions, some with Ph.D.’s and a number of them working in highly compensated jobs to do one thing, think!

So, I don’t the implication of that statement holds up. Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing validates like success. Bush ascended to the Presidency and very possibly will be reelected. By your reasoning, a majority of Americans are not reflective, not critical, and hold faulty opinions and ideas which supported their ballot choice.

It seems to me, Bush is a highly successful politician by virtue of his position in government. It also says to me, that if he is reelected, his proficiency in understanding how the political game is played will once again be demonstrated.

I would not credit him for the critical and reflective thinking that won him reelection - that would go to Rove and others - but, one must give him credit and respect for being able to play the political game.

Jack said, “How is it then that the people don’t vote overwhelmingly for Democrats?”

They did once. And the Democrats lost their confidence. Now it is the Republican’s chance to prove they are the better party. The election that determines whether Republicans lived up to expectations has not arrived yet.

It took decades for the majority of Americans to lose faith with the Democratic Party which did not show itself until the Gingrich Contract with America election. I suspect it won’t take that long for it to happen to the Republicans, in light of the myriad and cascading failures resulting from invading Iraq (occupation, Abu Ghraib, deficits and debts, mounting casualties, etc.) But the Republican Party is safe for the time being. The American public does not make fast rash decisions about political parties and does not give up its faith easily.

When it does, though, it does so wholeheartedly.

Actually the video of Pres. Bush in the school room was aired shortly after 9/11. I saw it and it is now being aired as “new” News. So be it, all’s fair, etc., etc.
What strikes me the most is that Pres. Bush has elected to take the war to the bad guys while Kerry wants to fight a more “sensitive” war on terrorism. This reminds me of the statement of a frustrated Gen. Douglas McArthur when he said, “I have NEVER learned how to bomb half of a bridge” !! Well if, by some stroke of enormously bad luck, Kerry is elected all of our military will be forced to return to school. “Sensitive” campaigns against dedicated terrorists can become VERY complicated. Almost as complicated as finding Cambodia on a map…or finding Christmas Day on a calendar…….

David:

Great comments. It is critical thinking like yours that can accept the ideas of others, while not necessarily agreeing with them.

Yet you do so without the condescension that some on the left have. They do seem to think that anyone who disagrees with their “correct” viewpoint is obviously beneath them in intelligence and character. How silly and vain that is.

The difference is not which party wants America to be stronger, better, smarter, safer etc. The difference in the parties is how to achieve this.
Both parties have the same general goal in mind, but often radically different means of getting there.

As an example, I typically do not give money to street people who beg. My brother DOES give them money. On the surface, it might appear he is more generous than I am, but after looking closely, one would discover that I give as much or more to charity than he does. But I do so in a different manner.

Our goal can be the same—-to help the needy. But we go about it differently. i dont see any need to condemn his way of doing it, though I dont see it as being as effective in a long term manner.

So it can be with politics.

jbod, thank you for complimentary remarks.

Education is the key, jbod, and you are quite right. If we could (not sure it is possible anymore, but) lay out a national curriculum for civics and American history such that all 7th thru 12th graders receive a cursory overview of all the various economic theories from feudalism, to socialism, to pure capitalism with both pro and con arguments to each, and the several major theories of government from authoritarian through oligarchy and monarchy to democracy, direct, representative, and parliamentarian, we would create one of the greatest, most informed, and involved generations that has been seen since the signers of the Declaration of Independence and drafters of the Constitution.

It would only take the will to do it. I could not think of a greater investment to make in the future of this nation. But, I think the window of opportunity for such an endeavor is closing fast if it is not already locked. I feel so very privileged to have received just such an education from the Detroit Public School system in the 8th grade through to my Bachelor’s degree at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

From what I read, such an broad overview of government and economic theories is getting difficult to find these days below the college level, and even Universities are reducing such liberal arts requirements in favor of fast track professional degrees. Huge mistake, HUGE! (IMO)

David:

Sems like our education system is trying just to teach our kids where Washington DC is on a map, and sometimes failing.

In my children’s school system (a very good one for which I pay very high taxes), they do a fantastic job. I’d say the 10th grade curriculum onward is at what used to be college level. But nonetheless, they dont teach the economic and governmental concepts you talk about. And when schools do seem to teach this stuff, it appears to me to be very biased, according to the teacher’s opinions rather than the mere facts.

This in part is why people seem to take such “Reader’s Digest” opinions on things, without the capacity to see the other argument. I know that Bush is not all bad, and that Kerry’s nuance has some benefit, but there truly are those out there who cannot see any iota of either position. This is part of what polarizes the country.

By the way, congrats on having survived the Detroit Public Schools. I lived for a while at Woodward and 9 Mile, had my wallet and pride taken in Highland Park, and escaped. My comment is that the media cannot do justice to Detroit… it is far worse than the media could ever present.

Samaritan
It is amazing how the video your side does not want the other side to see does not exist in your addled mind. I cite for instance the two video clips of Dubya behind a podium spewing an invective of a more sensitive war. On two separate occasions. Don’t know where Jon Stewart got the clips but I’m sure it was not faked. And what does it matter if someone was in Cambodia or three miles from Cambodia or was it Christmas day or was it Christman Eve, at least he wasn’t a deserter and AWOL like some big dummie I could name. I really would like a President to have at least a fourth grade vocabulary. I could go on but just wanted to point out the offending video to you and all you others with blinders on. God HELP America if the current bungler in chief gets re-elected.

Ray wrote:
> just wanted to point out the offending video

Um, how about a link?

-Cf

Jack—

You stated: “All these people can’t be greedy, selfish or stupid for so long a time. Surely they would have seen the light by now if there were light to see. To believe otherwise is to have no faith in democracy.”

Oh can’t they now? You underestimate the power of the human nature my friend. The sad fact is that most people are to some degree or another unenlightened, greedy, selfish, and unwilling to subscribe to the Christian ethos that supposedly underpins the foundation of the nation. It is widely know that less then half of the registered electorate actually votes in national elections. And out of those Gore, not Bush won the popular election. Bush did not have a mandate from the people to govern.

And as the years pass and the Constitution is weaken a little more and a little more by religious fervor and misplaced moral superiority, I am losing faith in the American sprit, in American democracy. We The People no longer seem to believe it, in the righteousness and fairness of liberty and justice for all and true equality for all citizens. The contentious debates over abortion, gay marriage, creationism, sex education is the public schools, all bear this out. True freedom should only be for those who conform to societal norms (moral of the religious right), the rest need not apply.

I’ll stop when the hypocrisy and self-righteous patter stops from the Right…

Mr. Remer—

I respectfully disagree. Bush is a mere puppet whose strings are being pulled by a small circle of puppeteers with their own very exclusive agenda. The more I read, listen, watch, and reflect on the policies of the past four years the tight I hold to that conclusion. And given the overwhelming body of evidence that suggest that the Bush presidency is pushing the United States in the wrong direction, and that the Bush Administration is doing sever harm to out Republic, how could an rational , reflective person that hold true to the founding principles of our nation support him enthusiastically or otherwise. Unless of course they stood to gain personally from the association.

I do credit him with being an apt pupil; he has learned well from his handlers and has been reward with the most powerful post in the world. But make no mistake, he is being handled, and we, the American people, nay the entire world, are paying the price.

People often see what they wish to see and hear what they wish to hear in order to sustain their positions no matter how illogical they happen to be. Call it self motivation. And education, no matter its length, does not guarantee reflective or critical thought that is a skill that is learned and must be practiced. Most Americans, indeed most people, have not the time or practice, or desire to ferret out the real from the imaginary, thereby making informed choices.

Perhaps I am wrong, time will tell…

One direct quote from an ardent Kerry supporter (on a different website), but a sentiment echoed in some way or another by virtually every Kerry supporter I know: “I, too, am confused about John Kerry’s stance on…well, on just about everything.” Perfect. Anyone currently thinking of voting for Kerry should consider that statement…from a Kerry supporter. I don’t want to vote for someone in the hope that they will finally settle on positions I agree with. And I sure as heck don’t want our enemies and friends (such as the French) confused by our President. George may not always articulate things well, but everyone knows where he stands on everything. My tolerance for nuance is ZERO since 9/11. I, and others, wonder whether Kerry’s lack of clarity (and stability) on positions is due to a true lack of a firm position, or an unwillingness to state things clearly in the hope that people will choose the statement of his they like best!

We have NOT been attacked again, the economy IS improved and improving, and since Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Pakistan are out of the terrorist support business George Bush SHOULD get re-elected. Despite the enmity of you and others, the President has shown excellent stewardship of our country through incredibly challenging times, and those not predisposed to ignore these facts respect him for it!

The year is 2004. Remember and consider the incredibly dire predictions that filled the air in the weeks after 9/11. Now consider how things have turned out. That’s why President Bush will get re-elected. The incessant demeaning of him, and any in the electorate who dare to support him, cheapens those doing it, not him, and not us.

Rand,

As a Kerry supporter, I am confused and oppose my candidates current stance when it comes to the Iraq War. I’d prefer an unconditional withdrawal of our troops. However, I shall defer to a man (and other Americans) who feel we need to finish the job.

There are certain nuances and wiggle room you Bush apologists afford your candidate, yet hold John Kerry to a strict adherence to his initial stance. And, here is where I hope a majority of voters realize, that just because you’re resolute does not mean you’re right.

The economy is improving for the investor class. Unfortunately, the jobs being created do not feed an Ohio family of four, or offer benefits.

Dick Cheney says electing Kerry will certainly bring on attacks. Al Queda has publicly endorsed four more years of Bush. Is it possible they have not attacked the U.S. to insure a Bush victory?

There will undoubtedly be no national elections next year in either Afghanistan or Iraq, simply because insurgents and terrorists control significant parts of both ‘burgeoning democracies’.

And last Rand, be careful in your strident boast crediting the administration for preventing new attacks. Most security experts say we are not as safe as we should be.

That is another one of those nuances that can come back and bite you on the ass!

I did not say we would never be attacked as long Bush was President, only that “we have NOT been”. And I didn’t claim that Afghanistan or Iraq would be model democracies by next year, only that they are “out of the terrorist support business”. Can terrorists still slip in and out of sections of those countries? Yes. Can they do so with the utter impunity they used to? No. Big difference. Lastly, I said the economy was “improved and improving”, it is. The unemployment rate is now 5.4%, and continues to drop. Considering the body-blows the economy and our country took (dot-com bust, 9/11, recession starting in 1Q2000, etc) we are in much better shape than ANY economist predicted after 9/11.

And that is my point. The question for this election is not “are you better off than you were four years ago?”, but rather: “have you considered how much worse off you COULD be, given what has transpired?”

Like you with Kerry, I do not support every policy and position of President Bush. But I do believe he “gets” the importance of the worldwide struggle we are engaged in. We can’t nuance it away…it’s upon us. When/if Kerry clearly articulates a plan for fighting the war against Radical Islam (for that’s what it is), that (a) he sticks to without wavering and (b) doesn’t have it’s heart being saved by the French, then I just might consider him. Until then he’s just nuanced-noice!

First of all Rand,

Terrorists are not just ‘slipping in and out’ of Afghanistan or Iraq. The Taliban is in firm control of sections of the former, and insurgents control central portions of the latter. Now, convince me there will be elections after all? It was your candidate that hailed them as ‘model Muslim democracies’ at the Olympics, remember? Nuance.

There are millions of unemployed Americans (formerly me) not represented in the job’s figure, because their benefits ran out and still without jobs. That does not register in your happy economic talk, but they feel it in Youngstown, Ohio. I can guess your answer to the ‘…better off than 4 years ago’ question. So, why doesn’t your candidate ask that next time he’s in West Virginia?

Bush apologists are sick and tired of failing to justify the Iraq War, and are starting to lash out - especially here in America. And, you provided a glimpse.

‘Radical Islam’ will eventually represent all Islam. Now, you know why the Muslim vote in Michigan will help carry the state for John Kerry.

David wrote:
“Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing validates like success.”

But Dubya has never truly been a success at anything - most notably he has not been successful as our president in this time of crisis. To me, he seems nothing more than a perfect example of how the children born to the Aristocracy of Inherited Wealth and Privledge can rise to the top, despite their lack of ability and character.
As that great purveyor of Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote in “The Rights Of Man”:
“How irrational then is the hereditary system which establishes channels of power, in company with which wisdom refuses to flow! By continuing this absurdity, man is perpetually in contadiction with himself; he accepts for a king, or a chief magistrate, or a legislator, a person whom he would not elect for a constable.”

In my opinion, if Dubya had not been born into easy access of power and position, he would likely be employed at a car dealership working a pitch, or maybe as a corporate lackey, because I honestly don’t think he would have been intelligent, wise or curious enough to have risen on his own steam.

“Bush ascended to the Presidency”

But did so by means which half the country questioned, because he was not elected, but rather appointed by a court whose majority reflected his own conservative views. And there are very grave doubts to this day about the accuracy and possible rigging of the votes in Florida during the last election.

“and very possibly will be reelected.”

I hope not. I honestly don’t think this country can take another four years of Neo-con decision making without completely breaking America - internationally, fiscally, environmentally etc., etc.

“By your reasoning, a majority of Americans are not reflective, not critical, and hold faulty opinions and ideas which supported their ballot choice.”

I agree to some extent with V. Edward’s reasoning.
I feel that a very significant percentage of Americans have become lazy about monitoring our government and holding it accountable for the choices they make on our behalf. If you ask around, you’ll find that few people take the time to read multiple views from various sources on the top news stories of the day (even though this is so easy to do online), but instead, read only those which most closely reflect what they believe to be their own opinions. Nor do many read foreign newspapers - even though it is sometimes possible to learn more about what is actually going on in this country by reading those sources than by reading national ones.
And large numbers of people don’t read anything at all. Instead, they watch only television news, never questioning whether there might be slant to that news, or whether that corporate organization might be watering things down or leaving out pertinent information _on purpose_. Concurrently, it seems that members of the television press have become afraid of asking tough questions - which is no way to unearth the Truth of what people are doing, or what they might be attempting to hide.

So, to sum it all up, I believe that American’s are only as critically informed as they make the effort to be. And when they don’t make any effort at all, it becomes very easy for politicians (Left, Right, Center) to fool them, trick them, or confuse them into doing what they want them to do - including electing them to office.

Bert,

Just a couple of rejoinders. The Taliban is NOT in firm control of useable sections of Afghanistan, at least not like they used to be. Remember, they had the WHOLE country, with airports and unrestricted use of roads and other infrastructure (such as it was). These morons used to hold press conferences!! Osama was a welcome guest in Kabul, and other than dodging an occasional cruise-missile he used that country as his personal fiefdom.

The jobs figures cut both ways. First, other than minor tweaking over time the unemployment rate is essentially calculated the same now as it was under Clinton. The rate serves only to indicate trends for comparison. So 5.4% is as good or bad now as it was then. Further, several times over the last few years (going back to the mid-90s) I have spent entire years working from my home. I paid taxes on every penny, but wasn’t counted as “employed”. I wasn’t counted as “unemployed” either. And I wasn’t providing “happy economic talk”, just stating that after the body-blows our country and economy took it is fairly amazing that we are back to the same unemployment rate as when Clinton got re-elected (aka, “the Golden Years”).

Lastly, I sure hope you don’t think it would be a good thing for “Radical Islam to eventually represent all Islam”. Do you? If you do then I suggest you do an Internet search on Osama’s letter to the world, wherein he describes his terms for peace. If those terms sound acceptable then we have no common ground whatsoever.

Rand,

So glad we got down to the details you’re obviously well versed in, because they look nothing like your initial ‘rosy scenario’. And, there you go again, moving the ball on me.

Even a Taliban lording over a ‘non-usable’ section of Afghanistan, does not a burgeoning democracy make. Good bet, those seeing a return of Taliban control anywhere, will not see a ballot box anytime soon.

Tweak, calculate or massage that wonderful 5.4% jobless rate, as you side step the stark reality I’ve stated and experienced. After your 13 weeks of Unemployment Benefits run out and you’re still jobless, you no longer factor into the jobless rate. And, a good many of the 250,000 Ohioans who lost their job last year, know that better than you.

Unfortunately, I did not make myself clear on the last point. You used the term ‘Radical Islam’, a phrase increasingly being used by Conservative radio hosts. Those that are using such a demonetizing term, I describe as:

Bush apologists are sick and tired of failing to justify the Iraq War, and are starting to lash out - especially here in America. And, you provided a glimpse.

Here in the Chicago area recently, state election officials decided to move polling places out of three local Baptist churches, that were overseen by a controversial area Minister. He was publicly quoted as saying ‘all Muslims are terrorists and want to destroy America’, and ‘American Muslims are sending money overseas to support terrorism’.

Your mimicking of such demonetizing rhetoric as ‘Radical Islam’, breeds such hate in this country.

So, to sum it all up, I believe that American’s are only as critically informed as they make the effort to be. And when they don’t make any effort at all, it becomes very easy for politicians (Left, Right, Center) to fool them, trick them, or confuse them into doing what they want them to do - including electing them to office. Posted by Adrienne at September 11, 2004 02:36 PM

Adrienne, I agree with your summation. I hate to say that because I think it’s the first time we’ve ever agreed on anything.

But though you were no doubt talking about non-lefties, it certainly applies to left as well.

Too many of my friends, especially my most liberal friends, spend much of their time around others of like mind, validating their identical opinions.

In 1973 a McGovern supporter said she couldn’t believe McGovern lost. She said, “Everybody I know voted for him.” (He lost 49 states.) I see a lot of that here at WB.

Now if everyone else could just become enlightened enough to think exactly like me… .

Bert,

You used the term ‘rosy scenario’, not me. I said “improved and improving”. Look at the economic landscape just after 9/11 and then trend it to now. Improved and improving. And yes, if you’re unemployed then the economy looks awful…under any administration. IF Kerry gets elected do you truly believe that if 3 years hence the rate is 5.4% he will declare himself a “failure”? Look back at the comments from Clinton when it was 5.4% in his administration…identical to now. Economic trending is only important for perspective and to provide a basis for discussion. The point is that the neither the “rosy scenario” (your term) nor the gloom & doom coming from Kerry/Edwards is accurate. I stand by “improved and improving”.

The hoods in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere will not allow democracy to flourish anywhere without a fight. Granted. But depriving Osama and friends of a VERY safe-haven HAS disrupted there operations immensely. And we’re still working at it. Knowing several people just back from there, and one still there I can tell you that the bad guys ARE running…but they do still exist.

Don’t label me, Bert. ‘Radical Islam’ describes, accurately, all those who seek to impose Sharia Law on humanity, by any means possible, and their current favorite tactic is terror. I didn’t lash out, I’m just tired of describing a tactic, “terror”, as the enemy. The enemy is real, and has NOTHING to do with true Islam. I only know two Muslim families in my area, but I can tell you that they DESPISE what is being done in the name of their true religion. The fact that you can find some moronic minister in your area that makes an equally moronic statement means nothing…other than that he is a moron. I “mimicked” no such rhetoric, or any rhetoric at all. Nor am I breeding “hate”. I’m just disagreeing with you.

NOTOTH wrote:
“Adrienne, I agree with your summation.I hate to say that because I think it’s the first time we’ve ever agreed on anything.”

[Cue scary music] And perhaps it won’t be the last… Bwahahaha!

“But though you were no doubt talking about non-lefties, it certainly applies to left as well.”

Like I said, I feel it applies to Anyone who only reads sources whose opinions they already agree with.

“Too many of my friends, especially my most liberal friends, spend much of their time around others of like mind, validating their identical opinions.”

I feel the same way about my conservative, liberal, religious, atheist and/or agnostic friends, and lots of other groups of friends, as well. I realize that its only human nature to feel safest among like-minded thinkers, but its dangerous to always try to make yourself so comfortable that you lose sight of the larger picture.
That being said, I’ll never forget a pearl of wisdom my (Scottish, Leftist) Gran once gave me: “Keep an open mind dearie, but not so open that your brains fall out.”
She said that to me because I grew up in a Progressive family in a Conservative town (Princeton NJ) and a certain segment of my friends came from what you might call Old Money (Virulently Republican), while we always had to struggle, therefore coming by our Leftism honestly.

“In 1973 a McGovern supporter said she couldn’t believe McGovern lost. She said, “Everybody I know voted for him.” (He lost 49 states.)”

Yeah. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area - I understand what you’re saying.

“I see a lot of that here at WB.”

I see some of everthing here at WB. Which is why I find it interesting and entertaining.

“Now if everyone else could just become enlightened enough to think exactly like me…”

:^) My thoughts exactly!

Rand,

I hereby reserve the right to blurt out ‘rosy scenario’, every time you utter ‘improve and improving’, until such time you’ll acknowledge the evidence I have provided, to the contrary.

Some have estimated the unemployed and uncounted in America from 4 million to 7 million. Agreed, upon Clinton’s re-election the jobless rate was identical - but, he did not need to ignore such a large group, because they all had jobs!

‘Rosy Scenario’ means trumpeting a disingenuous figure, and ignoring the reality absent from it’s equation. Sorta like emphasizing a honorable discharge when there are gaps in your service record. Do not dismiss the ‘gloom and doom’ as a Dem rhetorical tool either, when it’s obvious it has not touched you.

I agree, there has been a major disruption of Bin Laden’s terrorist organization, however that was not in dispute. You said:

Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Pakistan are out of the terrorist support business

The Taliban is back in Afghanistan, Al Zaqarwi is in Iraq, and Insurgents are flooding over the Pakistani border.

Lastly, I have heard the term ‘Radical Islam’ used 3 times - on Rush, Fox News and from a popular Conservative radio host in California on MSNBC. All were exasperated by the perceived hatred of Muslims and Islam towards the United States - and yet, they did not bother to even separate American Muslims.

In probably every American major city, there have been arrests of those charged or suspected of aiding various Islamic terrorist groups abroad. This alone puts so-called ‘moronic’ behavior in it’s proper context.

Those two Muslim families you mentioned, are typical of most American citizens of Islamic faith.

Your dilemma Rand, is that ‘moronic’ Baptist Ministers don’t vote Democratic.

To: Ray Schrock- Actually Ray Sen. Kerry (then Lt. Kerry) was about fifty miles from the Cambodian border as his own journal points out !! Odd behavior and an odd statement for a man who stated that the incident was, “Seared, seared in me”! But why worry about what (supposedly) occurred in the jungle 35 years ago? Indeed, Kerry’s expriences, or at least his version of them, would NOT have taken center stage of this election had not Kerry referred to them at every possible occasion. Had he but mentioned his war time service his operatives could have spent their time discussing his accomplishments. Everyone would have gotten the message (You know…Kerry good, Kerry brave !) and your candidate would now have 10+ more points in the polls !!!
Now, however, he sounds like a petulant little boy (as well as the entire Democratic Party) who keeps stamping his foot and squeaking, “I am a war hero, I am, I am, I AM” !! The rest of us just look on at these antics and say quietly, “Uh-Huh, Yeah…you sure are acting like one”. Judging from the polls we can’t be the only ones doing the same thing .
As far as the video you mentioned (and from your writing I am a bit confused about the point you were attempting to make) please provide a link, I’d like to see what you are talking about, No Really…..I would, I would, I WOULD !! I guess it’s much more convincing for Democrats when it comes from Kerry.
You state that Pres. Bush sounds like he has a fourth grade education…fair enough, who would you prefer as President. How about Jimmy Carter ??!? IQ of about 176, submarine commander and inventor of “Stagflation” and that ever popular favorite “National Malaise”. Now there’s a leader for you, let’s get him back, whaddya’ say ?
We are fighting a national war for survival against terrorists, the “Dog” I want in this fight must be willing to lead in this fight. A more “sensitive war on terrorism” is suicidal.

Bert

The “moronic minister” is located in Chicago’s 18th Ward, a place so strongly Democratic that even the people in the cemeteries are expected to vote for John Kerry in November. I don’t know who the minister himself will vote for, but most of his flock will go Democratic. A moronic Democratic minister. Doesn’t fit the script, does it? Just ignore it then.

Yes, “Some have estimated the unemployed and uncounted in America from 4 million to 7 million”, and “some” haven’t. All agree that there is a number, but that number is actually fairly stable over time. And as for the contention that during Clinton’s Presidency “they all had jobs!”, actually Bert you are the ONLY one willing to make such an assertion.

The downturn of the economy resulting from dot-com bubble bursting hit me very big…and that bubble started bursting under Clinton and was NOT his fault. Repeat: it was NOT his fault. The recession started during the final quarter of Clinton’s last term, and I don’t blame him for that one either. But the combination of those two symbiotic events had us sliding BEFORE 9/11. Focusing just on the economic impact of 9/11 the effects of 9/11 were huge. The airline and travel industry were obviously hurt, but so was virtually every other sector. Arguing the approach taken to stimulate the economy is one thing, and fair game. But your arguments essentially are that George Bush CAUSED the economic downturn. Even, apparently, those aspects of the downturn that began before he took office. The economy WAS in trouble in early 2000, and 9/11 was going to happen no matter who was president! The debatable aspect is: could the downturn have been shortened or shallower? NOT that under Gore there would have been no downturn.

Yes, I said: “Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Pakistan are out of the terrorist support business” There is a massive difference between state-sponsored terrorism and non-state-supported terrorism. When the terrorists have access to all the trappings of a government, including representation in the U.N., the advantage is huge. The Taliban were actually very certain we would NEVER remove them from power. Bomb a few square miles containing Bin Laden, et al, sure. But they figured they were free to run, and run down, their country. Lousy reasoning on their part.
Once more, the term ‘Radical Islam’ is spot on. Whether some have misused the term or not if your asking me to defend them: I can’t and I won’t. I will say that if you look at the number of hate crimes against Muslims within the U.S. and across the globe you will find only a tiny upswing since 9/11. A fairly remarkable fact (and searchable on the Web). The upswing in hate crimes against Jews in the U.S. and worldwide in the same period is huge by comparison. Something to think about.

Your statement that “In probably every American major city, there have been arrests of those charged or suspected of aiding various Islamic terrorist groups abroad” cries out for documentation”, assuming that you mean UNFAIRLY arrested. And if Jose Pedilla is your poster-child for unfair arrest…you need a new poster-child. That mutt was going to kill lots and lots of people, and his plan would actually have worked!

Lastly, thanks to jacj for clearing up the Baptist Minister thing for you!

Rand,

Seeing the strident tone in your response, I must be doing something right!

That 5.4% percent jobless number you Bush apologists are fond of using, is from the period just before Clinton’s re-election in 1996 - or, right in the middle of the Clinton Boom. And, seeing that his tenure produced some 18 Million jobs, it is safe to say, anyone who wanted a good paying job with health benefits, and could feed a family of four, could get one. The unemployed and uncounted group is the creation of the Bush term, Rand.

And again, you’re off on another tangent, as I never disputed (or raised the question), of the downturn in the economy. You spent a long paragraph asserting the downturn began under Clinton, but remember, your guy called his two tax cuts ‘economic stimulus’ packages.

Thanks for clarifying the ‘massive’ difference between state and non-state sponsored terrorism. Can you also supply the ‘massive’ difference in the number of rocket grenade launchers each would have in stock? Also, detail the impediments of such weapons from crossing from Afghanistan to Iraq?

The menacing term ‘Radical Islam’ used by Conservatives, is as brand new as the hateful comments by the Baptist minister. (Btw, just because you live and work in a heavily Democratic neighborhood, does not negate the fact that those who share your a Southern Baptist faith, tend to vote Republican.)

And lastly, I expected you to jump to the conclusions, in response to my comments about those arrested for aiding terrorist groups. No, my inference was not that they were unfairly arrested (nice try!).

My point, was that regardless of their guilt or innocence, such news reports aids in the ‘Radical Islam’ tag smearing all American Muslims, which leads to the hateful words of one ‘moronic’ (probably registered Republican), Baptist Minister.

Well, we agree! The downturn in the economy began under Clinton, due to numerous factors. And then you point out (rightly) that Bush “called his two tax cuts ‘economic stimulus’ packages”. He did…they did. You keep arguing from a point in the middle of the Clinton years, BEFORE the dot-com bubble burst as though that is what Bush started with. It isn’t, and you very well know it. Even a modest knowledge of economics tells you that there are cycles to the economy. Occasionally unforeseen and massive events affect the economy in, well, unforeseen and massive ways. Witness the implosion of the dot-com world (rightly, as there were lots of worthless companies sucking up huge amounts of stupid capital), and the tragedy of 9/11. When the cycles are interrupted we can turn WAY down (the Great Depression) or slightly down if the stewardship of the government makes the right moves. Despite the body-blows (as I describe them) we only turned slightly down. I do know that it serves the Kerry campaign to pretend we can start the curve from mid-1999…but we can’t.

Bulletin: I’m not a “Southern Baptist”. Jesus, oops, quit labeling me and anyone that disagrees with you. It’s like if you can find a label that fits then you win. Sorry.

Your kidding, right? You don’t get the difference between a COUNTRY being in the terrorism business, and groups having to skulk around to do their nefarious business? Wow! Yes, people they kill are equally dead. Granted. But when the Taliban could claim sovereignty, and thus full international protection, for their actions (and the actions of their “guest”) it made dealing with them a ticklish international issue. They don’t have a shield now to hide behind, and when we see them we get to kill them. Period. Today is the anniversary of 9/11, and I’m not feeling “sensitive” towards the folks that killed my fellow citizens. Try me tomorrow.

And when you say “my inference was not that they were unfairly arrested (nice try!)” You have a problem with people that are FAIRLY arrested?

Bert

An interesting example of bigotry. Neither of us knows how the “moronic minister” votes. The district where he lives is overwhelmingly Democratic, so an individual picked at random from the voter lists is more likely to be a Democrat. Yet you assume that just because of his religion, he not only votes Republican, but also is even a registered Republican. How is that different from the minister’s assumptions and stereotypes about Muslims? You may criticize what he said, but you have no reason to believe that he is a Republican nor if he were that would have affected what he said.

As for the term “Radical Islam” it can, as easily, be a way to differentiate among the believers and pseudo believers. The Islamic-terrorist connection is something we all see, but try to ignore. If you eliminated the Muslim participation in September 11, you would have no attack. That does not mean that all or even many Muslims support terrorism. It does mean that everyone has the duty to point out that the bad guys are misusing religion for hateful purposes. According to establishment Islam, a person who commits suicide goes straight to hell where he eternally relives the agony of his suicide. (On this September 11, I take some comfort that Mohammed Ata and his goons are suffering such a fate, and that Osama will soon join them.) The Koran also prohibits wanton killing non-combatants. Radical Islam refers to the hell-bound terrorist and their supporters to indicate the difference. I wish we could come up with a better term than “radical Islam”, but as long as the terrorists insist on claiming to speak for Islam, we have to address the connection, or else they own the term by default.

By the way the term “radical Islam” is better than what it replaced “fundamentalist Islam”. Calling the terrorists Fundamentalist was truly a misnomer, since the fundamental teachings would not condone what they are doing.

All right, its time for me to weigh in. And the conclusive evidence that Rand has provided completely overwhelms the rhetoric that Bert has provided.

Bert tries to insinuate what Rand is saying, while Rand keeps spouting off those pesky little things called…….oh yeah, facts.

Rand DIDNT say the economy was great—just that it has improved, which of course it has.

Rand DIDNT say the 5.4% unemployment rate is great for all Americans…he simply showed that its comparable to Clinton, who many credit with great economic success.

Rand DIDNT say that Muslims are the problem…but did say that “Radical Muslims” who use terror as their strategy ARE the problem
(Similarly, true Christians dont present a problem to society, but those who promote racism or white supremacy, those who bomb abortion clinics, or those who create brainwashed cultists in the name of Christianity certainly ARE a problem). There is a difference between mainstream and radical religion.

I, for one, condemn ANY religion that promotes the use of random violence to secure its goals. I condemn ANY action that intentionally targets the innocent and the children of society. Regardless of the purpose behind the action, I condemn those who take children hostage, who kill innocent civilians, who show no remorse at brutally murdering the Nick Bergs and Danny Pearls and Russian schoolchildren.

Rand, you’ve done an excellent job of sticking to the facts…and Bert has not answered in kind. Could it be that Bert is putting words into your mouth that you have yet to speak because he cannot argue that facts that you have presented?

Thanks joebagodonuts, strange name, but thanks anyway! :)

In visiting numerous sites I find that in this campaign it is those supporting Kerry who have trouble staying “on message”, while those supporting Bush (or at least looking for clarity from the Kerry supporters) have less or no trouble staying focused. I like this site because the discussion stays mostly civil, whereas on some sites by the second or third go-round the response from the Kerry folks tends to be: “yeah, well George Bush is stooopid, so none of that other stuff matters”. Or some such.

But the “other stuff” does matter. Things could have (and would have under Gore) been done differently, to be sure. Would they have turned out better? I do not believe so. I’m willing to debate the merits of Bush’s Presidency based on what did happen. What is often frustrating is when the opposing argument assumes an “Alice in Wonderland” world of soft puffy clouds would have resulted if Bush just hadn’t been president. No recession, no 9/11, and a Saddam Hussein who sees the light without us (and the Brits, et al) parking 150,000 of our military in Kuwait. Iraq could have been dealt with differently, and is a fair topic as well. But Iraq did have to dealt with, and the evidence of malfeasance in the “oil for food” program shows that France and Russia weren’t gong to help no matter what. The Iraq-side of the presidential debate is between what was done, and thus did happen, versus what might have been done…and thus what might have happened. It is not between the situation now and a fanciful Iraq transformed into a land of milk & honey by an enlightened Saddam.

I have nothing to add, except to welcome newcomer Rand, who seems like a nice new voice from the right-ish side of things. Welcome, Rand!

-Cf

Thx CF. I enjoy a lively respectful dialogue (obviously). Dialogue from all viewpoints in critical, because no matter who wins we’re all Amreicans (that’s my sappy side coming out).

Cheers all!

If I were you, I would remember John Kerry’s remarks, in which he stated that”I could not think for 40 minutes”!

Now, do you still want to discuss seven minutes?

No? Well imagine that!

Tom

it is those supporting Kerry who have trouble staying “on message”, while those supporting Bush (or at least looking for clarity from the Kerry supporters) have less or no trouble staying focused.

That’s because we’re all free thinkers. We don’t turn to the conservative media in the morning to get our daily talking points. We’ve made up our own minds on the issues in our own individual ways. Thanks for pointing that out, Rand.

evidence of malfeasance in the “oil for food” program shows that France and Russia weren’t gong to help no matter what.

I have yet to see any evidence that the entire foreign policy beaurocracy in the governments of both France and Russia were all swayed by oil vouchers. Until I do, I’ll skip the conspiracy theories and stick with the most likely explanation: Bush failed to convince them of the need to invade Iraq. And what do you know! It turned out they were right, Iraq had no WMD.

And you poo poo any alternative to the present state of things that could have led to a better America and a better world. Go ahead, since whether you’re right or wrong is all in the realm of speculation. But there’s no way you can convince me that Gore wouldn’t have done a better job on all those issues.

If I were you, I would remember John Kerry’s remarks, in which he stated that”I could not think for 40 minutes”!

Tom, at least he could immediately call his wife - which is more than GW “caught in the headlights” Bush was capable of, before finally leaving the classroom close behind the secret service guy to hide the pee stains on his pants.

Rand:

I welcome you also, and commend you for pointing out my strange name. It befits my strange personality.

However, take note that I too follow the factual approach, and will not—-WILL NOT—stoop to the level of those like American Pundit (AP) who make comments about “pee stains” and such. If I really want potty humor, I’ll just turn on Howard Stern and get my fill.

I will, however, continue to get my digs in at those who don’t make sense, those who can’t see the forest for the trees, and those who resort to infantile comments in an apparent attempt to make a point. Many of these people will not understand the clever insults being tossed their way—I suspect it will mostly wash harmless over their heads—but that makes it even more fun. As always, the facts will win out.

…before finally leaving the classroom close behind the secret service guy to hide the pee stains on his pants.

Thank you AP for so aptly demonstrating what Rand ment by:

I like this site because the discussion stays mostly civil, whereas on some sites by the second or third go-round the response from the Kerry folks tends to be: “yeah, well George Bush is stooopid, so none of that other stuff matters”. Or some such.

You have truly lowered the bar.

-D

Rand,

One heads up for a WB new recruit - guys like joebags will only recognize ‘facts’ from those that share his opinion.

Sorry, it took so long to respond, it was that job thing, you know.

This will be my last response to you on these subject matters Rand, so I think it wise I offer up a summation:

- Terrorists groups such as the Taliban and Al Zaqarwi do not need to be in control of a country to be a formidable member of the ‘terrorist support business’, or more so, a potent force of insurgency in the region.

I asked you directly to show how the growing contingent of Taliban re-established in Afghanistan, have been less influential and/or not directly involved in the growing conflict in the region - compared before their ousting nearly 3 years ago.

And, I asked for proof that they’re not involved in weapons smuggling into Iraq. Or, acting as a passage way (thru wide open borders), of Insurgents from neighboring Muslim countries heading to Iraq to fight the Maerican Infidels.

The escalating violence in Iraq over the past weeks begs the question - where are Insurgents getting explosives and weapons supplies? If the surrounding countries are out of the ‘terrorists support business’, why are an increasing number of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens dying?

- Instead of sticking with the issue of jobless Americans in September 2004 - with still unchallenged statistics you continue to ignore - I foolishly sat still for a smug economics lesson. Am I suppose to believe now, the downturn started when Clinton took office in ‘92?

The point I was making, is that your ‘elitist talk’ about cyclical economic trends will keep a CNBC viewer mesmerized, but it makes an unemployed Rust Belt voter click over to a Roseanne rerun. The Investor Class is in total agreement with your selective touting of the economy, however the reality is in the majority of Americans who think we are heading on the ‘Wrong Track’.

- I did not label you a ‘Southern Baptist’ (please cut and paste the evidence?), I only flippantly and conspiratorially linked you and the ‘moronic Minister’, ideologically.

Commenter Jack accused me of religious bigotry by assuming I have no basis for assuming the Baptist Minister probably a registered Republican. I offer up this proof:

Harris Poll 2000: Religious Affiliation and Presidential Election

Lastly, I’d like to address comments made by WB regular joebagdonuts.

We’ve had many a verbal tangles here joe, and I even remember apologizing for lumping you in with an infamous group, at one time.

joebags wrote:

I will, however, continue to get my digs in at those who don’t make sense, those who can’t see the forest for the trees, and those who resort to infantile comments in an apparent attempt to make a point.

In your comment from 9/12, you called Rand’s comments ‘conclusive evidence’. If I’m not mistaken, the only verifiable evidence he offered up was the jobless figure at 5.4% percent - I did not challenge that. After that, his characterizations about the economy and the war on terrorism, were his opinions.

I challenged his claim that Afghanistan and Iraq were out of the ‘terrorist support business’, by asking why the Taliban has again set up shop and Zaqarwi is causing havoc. Why are national elections in both countries not on schedule? The increase in violence in Iraq is due to a supply from where?

I challenged him (to no avail) to look below the rosy jobless number, and recognize that it does not represent the true hardship being felt in this country.

joe, in your emphatic rush to show support for Rand’s assertions, you forgot to do more than characterize my detailed and pointed responses as only ‘rhetoric’ or ‘infantile comments’ - at the very least, show them as non-factual. You’re decision not to, speaks volumes.

This routine has yet again, become tiresome. For many months now, like-minded commenters from the Blue Column have made good use of the url link formatting here, backing up claims and acknowledging challenges with sourced evidence. And, more so than not, such efforts have been dismissed out of hand as ‘partisan’, ‘propaganda’, or gone un-responded.

I reserve the right to excuse myself from such disingenuous, disrespectful, and ultimately, futile exercise.

Bert,

I ws going to respond to all the stuff you threw back up, but I figure just irrefutably provng one point would be enough, so here goes…

In your last, somewhat emotional posting you said this: “- I did not label you a ‘Southern Baptist’ (please cut and paste the evidence?), I only flippantly and conspiratorially linked you and the ‘moronic Minister’, ideologically.”

So here it is, cut & pasted from our earlier discussion:
“(Btw, just because you live and work in a heavily Democratic neighborhood, does not negate the fact that those who share your Southern Baptist faith, tend to vote Republican.).”

You should really remember what you post. :)

p.s. there isn’t anything wrong with being a Southern Baptists, I just don’t happen to be one. I found your attempt to label me one and then associate a negative comment from a particular moronic Minister with me by definition to be weak, as best.

p.p.s. The UPTURN started just BEFORE Clinton took office in ‘92 (the stats are an easy search away)

Rand,

My bad! Guilty as charged!

However, it was never my intention to call you a Southern Baptist, having no idea your religious affiliation.

The line should’ve read:

‘…does not negate the fact that those who share his Southern Baptist faith…’

‘His’, of course, referring to the ‘moronic Minister’ (your description).

However, I detect on your part a strong determination to distance yourself from being associate with or likened to, a Southern Baptist. Of course, not that there is anything wrong with being a Southern Baptist.

No doubt, you checked the link I provided which shows an overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists vote Republican, and you cannot deny the power they wield within the GOP.

So go right ahead and Google up some Sharpton quotes, because the Moronic Minister’s quote is nothing compared to the bile and hate of Bush’s close confidant and Southern Baptist leader Rev. Jerry Falwell. And, I draw the comparison due to your (now regretful) mimicking of the new Conservative radio hate code label ‘radical Islam’.

I ws going to respond to all the stuff you threw back up, but I figure just irrefutably provng one point would be enough, so here goes…

Again, nice try! ‘…was going to’ or ‘would rather not’?

The UPTURN started just BEFORE Clinton took office in ‘92

Thanks to Reagan and Bush Sr. rolling back the disastrous Reagan tax cuts (though it was the middle class tax cuts that got inordinate attention in the rollback). If GW wants to give his successor a break and improve the economy, he can follow in the footsteps of those two great men. But keep the middle class tax cuts this time.

Comments deleted for flame baiting, and violation of our Critique the Message, not the Messenger policy. Watchblog Manager

Hey Bert & Rand. If you’re going to keep going with this thread, get off the personal tit-for-tat and back on the issue. I’m too lazy to scroll up, and I forgot what it is. - Column Manager