leg4li2ed0pe wrote:I don't care what most people think. That has no connection with the truth. Most people voted for ronald reagan. They were wrong.
Most would say that you were wrong. That is the beauty of our system. Your view is swept aside by the majority.
Pundits just speak the party lines. They rarely think for themselves and so I don't put much weight in what they say.
I agree.
Those string of critisisms don't mean none of those presidents ever did good things. I was just trying to say that I don't have a "my party can do no wrong" attitude. The reason I didn't mention nixon was because he was a republican.
OK, I appreciate you clarifying that. I'll mention Nixon. He was a crook, and should have went to prison. The worst president we have had, despite his other international diplomacy, and intellectual skills.
I did read 1441. I even watched the debate about it webcast by the UN on their website. I watch C-Span. So I do know whats going on. If the rest of the american people don't do that thats not good. It dosn't mean that someone's personality is more important than their ideas, it just means that's what people tend to vote on. That they tend to vote on personality is probobly true but it doesn't make personality more important.
I'm sure that you and I are the only ones on this forum that took the time to read it. What about Kyoto Accords, or the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence to see how little of it applies to current day America?" Most people blow off about all those things, and Bush's position on Kyoto or Gatt without even knowing what they say.
I guarantee that most Americans don't even read their local paper every day. They may catch the evening news, and not question the liberal bias of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN which is desparately trying to elect Kerry.
I'm not saying that you are wrong about voting based on issues vs. a person's personality. I'm just saying what the reality is...and why when it comes to Gore and Kerry, they are boring, monotone, depressing, robotic type individuals. Even those in the democratic party know this is true, which is why they hoped that McCain would run as a VP with Kerry, or even that somehow Hillary could jump in and save the day.
Ok more polls about how people approved of bush after 9/11. I'll say it again. Just because most people think something doesn't make them right.
Nor are you the Pope to be able to determine if he was wrong. He was a leader of the people, and was doing what they wanted him to do...based upon those approval ratings. That is his job...to represent the will of the people. It is not his job to find out what some dude promoting legalizing drugs thinks is right, and then do it.
Any sitting president during an event like 9/11 would see their approval ratings soar. It is not a reflection on George Bush's leadership skills.
Not necessarily. If a president got freaked out and launched some nuclear weapons, or went into a depression and didn't comfort and talk to the people, his ratings would not have soared. While I concede that it was easy to get the high ratings, my point is that he did what the people wanted him to do, including making the decision to begin a path of ferreting out the terrorists where they live before they attack us again.
This new pre-emptive doctrine is something that I totally agree with, given that these Islamic terrorists have stated clearly that they are dedicated to the destruction of the West, and have performed repeated attacks before and after 9/11. Think of how to deal with the Klingons...and you'll begin to see the error of your ways of pacificsm.
While pacificsm is noble, and great....while Ghandi and Martin Luther King are some of my personal heroes, there are also times if someone is charging at you and your family to use force to destroy them. While the example is not precisely the same as Afganistan and Iraq, they were both bastions and havens for these suicidal fanatics.
Aghanistan is questionable. I see two reasons we went there, to get revenge, which I see as a bad reason and also the definatly secondary reason, to try and damage the terrorists. I think the second reason is valid, but I don't know that attacking afghanistan accomplished that goal. It may have just helped recruit more people to harm us.
There is no road map to follow in a situation like this....but most Americans are not willing to sit back and hope like the French that the terrorists will just behave themselves. If you think they will attack again, you have two choices. 1) Attack them first or 2) Pick up the pieces from the 2nd attack. If the next attack is in your city, I predict your opinion will change. They have stated publicly on their Islamic websites that they intend on killing 4-5 million Americans this summer.
I hate to get drawn into an arguement about the cold war but i guess it must be done. Gorbachev saw that the communist system in his country wasn't working like it should. He saw the need for reforms. Reagan had little roll in that.
You need to spend some time read what Gorby has actually said, rather than what you think he said or thought. He gives Reagan full credit for standing head to head, and forcing them to match our outrageous defense expenditures. After they did it for a number of years, and realized that Reagan was not going to back down, they realized this was not going to work. Yes, they were also having financial problems, but if they thought they would win over Reagan, that would not have resulted in the ending of the Soviet Union.
In addition, Reagan allowed Gorby to save face and did a lot to reach out and develop a friendship with him that has Gorby speaking very highly of him even this week during his funeral. Gorby himself, gives Reagan the credit for the end of the Soviet Union, the subsequent treaties, financial support, destruction of the Berlin wall, and embracing many of the eastern european countries. For God's sake we are friends with the likes of Poland, Ukraine, Uzbakestan, Russia, etc. etc.
Look at N. Korea as an example. They are completely poor, yet they do not back down militarily because they think they are winning their standoff with S. Korea, and the USA. This type of warrior Klingon personality does not back down because someone is passive or nice to them.
There was the element of the soviets not being able to keep up with the US in the arms race but that was secondary to gorbachev's desire for reform.
You are wrong. Gorby sought US help for reforms that were brought about by the fact that their economy was not a part of the world's economy, and by astronomical amounts of money spent on their military. Again, read what Gorby says about Reagan before you assume something that you want to believe.
Are you sugesting we get into an arms race with the insurgency? If we go in with extreme force all we will do is help the insurgency recruit more people. If we did that it could become another vietnam. I realize it isn't yet and thats why i don't like to compare the two but it could become vietnam with that kind of statagy.
No, I'm not suggesting that. You have different strategies with different situations. Bush has not done that with Iran or N. Korea. Why do you assume that is his intention now?
None of your other Vietnam or fueling the insurgency recruiting will happen if we make the Iraqi's stable and happy with their new situation. We will be viewed highly, as we are by the Kuwaitis. Once Arab/Persian nations see that we are not there to steal their oil, and are willing to die for their freedom as we did in WW-II for the Euro-Liberals, the tide will begin to turn. We also need to make sure the Palestineans are taken care of, and stop putting up with the one sided, selfish Israelis.
So you are in favor of negative ads from one canidate but not the other?
I didn't say that. I said that the network media is 70-80% liberal by their own admission, and do not give a fair play to either Bush or the Republicans in general. The Repubicans are painted as only favoring the rich, and raising enormous amounts of campaign funds. But nothing is said by the liberal media about George Soros giving tens of millions in an attempt to buy the election. Nothing is said about the enormous amount of union/labor contributions to the democrats in untracked categories of campaign contributions.
Given those realities, the Republicans need to buy their media exposure to counter balance it. The most effective response for the money is to do the type of negative ads, which also are ringing true because Kerry is the most liberal US Senator, trying to flip-flop his way back to the middle. Everyone knows he is doing that, and the ad's just crystalize it. It is him doing that type of false positioning which will lead to his defeat.
Why not let both have their negative ads and let people decide which they think are true. but to say that bush should be able to have negative ads and kerry shouldn't because you think bush's are more true is absurd.
There is nothing stopping the democrats from running however many negative or positive type of ads as they see fit. The problem they have is that Bush does not flip flop, and on many important issues, Kerry and Bush are not far apart, so they have not yet been able to find an effective negative ad.
So like aviation's signature on this forum, they snipe at his military service and dental records in the reserve, or having been in a fraternity, or being from a wealthy family.....never mind who Kerry is married to, and the fact that Kerry has 5 mansions, a private jet, and a fleet of SUV and other vehicles that are not representative of what he preaches.
The liberal media is a myth. It may seem somewhat liberal at times with the iraq coverage but its only because Iraq really is falling apart. A school in Iraq being built isn't really news anyway. A soldier getting killed is.
Then you are brainwashed. It does not seem that way....it is that way. Here are a few links for your perusal. Wake up and smell the coffee dude.
CBS News ArticleThe Weekly StandardYou can do a google search of "Liberal Media Poll" and find your own evidence...hopefully you will realize your errors. As far as Iraq, if you watch Fox News, which all of the military will now only watch while in Iraq, you see every day both good and bad news. You see the happy children, the schools, the women involved, the improvement of their economy and infrastructure, the positive developments in the government over the last few weeks, the surrender of the militias, the unanimous approval of the UN resolution, the dedication of our soldiers, etc. etc. etc. etc.
On the liberal CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC you see daily counts of dead soldiers, and as much bad news as they can find. You see the absolute certainty that the situation is getting worse, that there are no Iraqi leaders to even be able to think about turning sovereignty over to, you see the supposedly innocent civililians killed in various attacks, you see the recent desert attack portrayed as an innocent wedding party, rather than the images of weapons caches, maps, cash, foreign passports, and other convincing evidence that it was a way station for incoming terrorists. I could go on and on, but you need to find out for yourself.
I don't think you really want to have the arguement about big donors trying to buy elections. The republicans have been doing it for years with big donations from large multinational corperations trying to buy elections. Both sides do it. I would argue the rebublicans do it more. While fox news constantly praises george bush and what he does, cnn only repeates everything the administration says as fact. If thats left wing bias then i guess they are really biased.
I agree that large corporations tend to give money to republicans, and labor unions, lawyers, and other interest groups give primarily to the democrats. However how this gets portrayed is unilaterally that the republicans are bad, and the democrats are good, and hardly have any money coming in. I will tell you this for a fact. There has never been a republican single individual with billions of dollars stating that he will use his entire fortune to unseat a US President, and George Soros has already given over $20 million towards this cause (ie. through the ultra liberal moveon.org).
Do you think the liberal press would cover this blatant abuse since he is a democrat? Nope. If he was giving it to the republicans, they would be all over the size and odor of his sh*t every night, and on 60 minutes every other week.
Lets get one thing straight. Howard Dean is not an ultra-liberal. He is a moderate who tried to harness the anti-war movement to get elected.
No, you are grossly mis-informed. He is an ultra liberal, that even his own democratic party realized was too far left to get elected. His voting and VT governor record are clearly indicative of this fact. You need to read more facts before you make claims.
He was a fake and thats all there is to it. As for kerry being the most liberal senator, I would disagree and say that edward kenedy is more liberal but if what you say is true then its a sad day in america. It means we obviously need more liberal senators. I am getting kind of tired of hearing liberal used as an insult. I'm a liberal and I am proud of it. I don't mind terribly john edwards actually, because unlike kerry he actually stands for something and when he talks he talks about the issues and not about how he would be a better leader. Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller on the other hand really don't stand for anything and have similar problems to kerry. The only problem is when they talk about leadership they talk about it more like bush does. I do wish kerry would be more clear about his being a liberal though. I think if he had a clear plan about iraq, even if it was to pull out, he would be doing better in the polls because people would feel like they have an actual alternative to bush.
All you have to do is use google to find the studies of Kerry's voting record to see that he is clearly more liberal than Kennedy. It is something the democrats are trying to keep hidden, but the republican attack ads, and shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News stories are exposing him. Thank God Fox news is now the number one news program, and has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined in ratings.
I admire your honesty, and willingness to stand up as a liberal. There's nothing wrong with that. You are entitled to your opinions in this free country. The problem you have is that liberals do not have a consensus to get what you want. My suggestion at picking democrats that are middle, is so you could get back some power...and then begin a movement towards some liberal positions. The country is not supportive or ready for real liberals like Kerry or Dean...however they pretend not to be. So you start with an electable candidate like Clinton, and try to move more to your liberal views while they have the football.
Your current democratic strategy of attacking, bashing, no ideas, depressing, monotone, rigid candidates is not working. Nor is electing flaming plastic faced rabid attack dogs like Nancy Pelosi to lead your party.
I'm not one of those who never let florida die. That arguement was already going on so I thought i'd just put my two cents in. I really have moved on and its not what im concerned with anymore.
I salute your intelligence.
Sorry just jumped to the conclusion that you only wanted to debate people like aviationwiz. I was wrong. Lets not get into ego. My life's goal is to compelty abolish mine.
OK, I admire you for that goal. Making the posts with as much detail and links as I do takes time....as did this last one....but it's all grist for the mill as Ram Das once said.
Bush Bash, funny, as President Bush has become the king of bashing, and negative ads. Not sure where your coming on the feeling sorry for yourself shit, as I sure as hell do not. Also, as an American citizen, I have every damned right to complain about my government, no matter who is in charge.
