Another Brilliant Kerry Campaign Move

[corplinx]

Kerry went into ad hominem attacks yesterday when he thought he wasn't being heard in a private conversation with a union bigwig.

Today it was expected Kerry would apologize. Kerry went to speak today and the entire media was waiting with hushed breath for........

No apology and instead a call for more socialism!

Kerry simply schooled these media people. The basically built up his appearance and gave him free press he wouldn't normally have and he took full advantage of it. Bravo Kerry!

Whether your like Kerry or not, his renewed attacks on Bush today were a brilliant move. He was given a free minute in the media and he made the most of it.

[Monketey Ghost]

Bush... NYTimes reporter... big-time...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by corplinx
Kerry went into ad hominem attacks yesterday when he thought he wasn't being heard in a private conversation with a union bigwig.

Today it was expected Kerry would apologize. Kerry went to speak today and the entire media was waiting with hushed breath for........

No apology and instead a call for more socialism!

Kerry simply schooled these media people. The basically built up his appearance and gave him free press he wouldn't normally have and he took full advantage of it. Bravo Kerry!

Whether your like Kerry or not, his renewed attacks on Bush today were a brilliant move. He was given a free minute in the media and he made the most of it. What I don't get is if the contempt is so deep, why did he accept Bush's call to congratulate Kerry on his presumed nomination? Something 2 faced about calling him crooked and a liar behind his back and thanking him to his face.

Oh well, I have feeling that Bush has probably done the same. I guess what really amazes me are the folks that think their candidate, Republican or Democrat is somehow ethically or morally superior.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by No Answers
Bush... NYTimes reporter... big-time...

Right. Adam Clymer. "Major league a**hole." Bush never apologized, either.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by corplinx
No apology and instead a call for more socialism!

Huh??

Kerry is not a socialist. How do you figure that??

[Sundog]

While entertaining for the sheer irony, I question whether this "offended innocence" stance of the GOP will be a wise campaign tactic. I encourage them to keep it up, though.

[Nyarlathotep]

I am undecided as to which candidate I will hold my nose and vote for, but i wouldn't apologize if I were him. If he truly meant what he said, my estimation of him would go up 100 fold if he came out and said "I said it, I meant it, I won't apologize for it"

Besides, if every election we have ever held in this country is any indication, it won't be long until until his opponents start putting out ads saying pretty much the same things about him, just being more slyer and disingenuous about it. And of course his side will be saying/doing the same thing towards Bush...

[Luke T.]

Speaking of irony, what do you make of Kerry saying, "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen" while speaking to a union bigwig? :p

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Speaking of irony, what do you make of Kerry saying, "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen" while speaking to a union bigwig? :p

I can only imagine that he said it with his eyes closed. :D

But really, this isn't very different than the rest of his "campaign-negative-then-demand-a-clean-campaign" strategy so far. in fact, I find the directness refreshingly honest.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Speaking of irony, what do you make of Kerry saying, "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen" while speaking to a union bigwig? :p



:dl:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Speaking of irony, what do you make of Kerry saying, "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen" while speaking to a union bigwig? :p
Makes the statement all the more disparaging. :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius

Makes the statement all the more disparaging. :)

Indeed! :)

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Right. Adam Clymer. "Major league a**hole." Bush never apologized, either. Daddy Bush did it too after being introduced to Paul Wellstone. "Who's that little *****?" or something similar.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Jocko


I can only imagine that he said it with his eyes closed. :D

But really, this isn't very different than the rest of his "campaign-negative-then-demand-a-clean-campaign" strategy so far. in fact, I find the directness refreshingly honest.

I don't recall Kerry saying he wouldn't campaign negatively. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, when he was being compared to Dukakis, he said he wouldn't stand by while getting attacked. I think we know what he meant.

Duck everyone, the mud's gonna be flyin' high this year!

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Right. Adam Clymer. "Major league a**hole." Bush never apologized, either.

I see a big difference bewteen the two cases. Calling someone an a**hole is unequivocally an opinion, whereas calling someone a crook is the kind of thing you ought to back up. It's an accusation, not an insult.

After all, I might vote for an a**hole but I'd never vote for a crook*.






* knowingly.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Daddy Bush did it too after being introduced to Paul Wellstone. "Who's that little *****?" or something similar.

And who can forget Reagan and his missiles have been launched faux pas? And Jackson and his hymietown?

I'm surprised Clinton was never caught talking about the physical features of the closest female.

Only a matter of time before a candidate is caught making a sex joke, I guess.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Evolver

Duck everyone, the mud's gonna be flyin' high this year!

Can you name an electio year when it wasn't?

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Luke T.


And who can forget Reagan and his missiles have been launched faux pas? And Jackson and his hymietown?

I'm surprised Clinton was never caught talking about the physical features of the closest female.

Only a matter of time before a candidate is caught making a sex joke, I guess.

Reagan's was a joke, and should have been taken as such.

Jackson's was repulsive.

As far as both Bushes & Kerry, I have no problem with hearing a little profanity & candor now again.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Evolver


I don't recall Kerry saying he wouldn't campaign negatively. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, when he was being compared to Dukakis, he said he wouldn't stand by while getting attacked. I think we know what he meant.

Duck everyone, the mud's gonna be flyin' high this year!

Take your pick. There's 967 links here:

From the John Kerry 2004 Website (http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=positive+campaign&x=0&y=0&sp-a=sp1001847f&sp-f=ISO-8859-1&sp-x=all)

He called on Dean to lighten up, then attacked him; did the same thing to Edwards. I've heard him on the air calling for the same "attack truce" with Bush, and sho'nuff, we're right back to the crapola.

As to the level of mudslinging... frankly, I can't wait. This would be a real snoozer otherwise.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Huh??

Kerry is not a socialist. How do you figure that??

This might be an american/euro misunderstanding. Sorta like the american definitions of conservative/liberal.

In america, we call "taxing the bejesus out of pay to expand or pay for new entitlements" socialism.

If you heard Kerry's statements at the supposed apology time today, you would hear him dropping codewords left and right for more government spending than Bush on federalizing local schools, nationalizing healthcare, etc.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Jocko


Take your pick. There's 967 links here:

From the John Kerry 2004 Website (http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=positive+campaign&x=0&y=0&sp-a=sp1001847f&sp-f=ISO-8859-1&sp-x=all)

He called on Dean to lighten up, then attacked him; did the same thing to Edwards. I've heard him on the air calling for the same "attack truce" with Bush, and sho'nuff, we're right back to the crapola.

As to the level of mudslinging... frankly, I can't wait. This would be a real snoozer otherwise.

I guess here in Massachusetts, he felt he had the primary in the bag. We didn't get to see his attack ads.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
If he truly meant what he said, my estimation of him would go up 100 fold if he came out and said "I said it, I meant it, I won't apologize for it"

well according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/main/index.html)
"I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks," Kerry said during his appearance with Democratic senators. "I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country."

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Marc


well according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/main/index.html)
"I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks," Kerry said during his appearance with Democratic senators. "I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country."

Yeah, well, he wouldn't be talking so tough if he didn't have 30 Democrats standing right behind him.

[Tmy]

Did you hear his comments today.

He challenged Bush to a dance off, Breaking 2 Electric Bogaloo style!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Marc


well according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/main/index.html) "I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks," Kerry said during his appearance with Democratic senators. "I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country."


Well there you go. Now if he doesn't spend the next several weeks wriggling around the meaning of his words, my increased opinion of him my actually last.

My hopes aren't high, though, he is a politician after all.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


And who can forget Reagan and his missiles have been launched faux pas?

Whoa...I'm the LAST person who'd be caught defending Reagan, but he was making a joke that made it onto the air.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Speaking of irony, what do you make of Kerry saying, "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen" while speaking to a union bigwig? :p

Um, talking to somebody who would really understand very well what he meant?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Both Reagan and Kerry knew that the mics were hot I think Reagan didn't make a joke as much as a veiled threat. Kerry said he was speaking in the context of the "Republican attack dogs" and refused to issue an apology.

Bush has new commercials out today stating amongst other things " John Kerry wants to raise your taxes by 900 million dollars.

Fasten Your seat belts Kids, this is going to be a bumpy ride.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by corplinx


This might be an american/euro misunderstanding. Sorta like the american definitions of conservative/liberal.

In america, we call "taxing the bejesus out of pay to expand or pay for new entitlements" socialism.

If you heard Kerry's statements at the supposed apology time today, you would hear him dropping codewords left and right for more government spending than Bush on federalizing local schools, nationalizing healthcare, etc.

Tell me, what's it called when a president, instead of using tax money for more government spending, simply divvies it up among his rich buddies, leaving our children to clean up the mess? Do you have a convenient label for that?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Sundog


Tell me, what's it called when a president, instead of using tax money for more government spending, simply divvies it up among his rich buddies, leaving our children to clean up the mess? Do you have a convenient label for that?

I would call it theft. Now which president did that?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

any possibility Kerry did this on purpose and pretended to make an off the record statement like that to get attention ?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Huh??

Kerry is not a socialist. How do you figure that??

Not by European standards, certainly. But Kerry is about a close to a socialist as could be elected President of the United States.

By USA standards, the whole European political spectrum is 'red shifted'. :D

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


By USA standards, the whole European political spectrum is 'red shifted'. :D

Speak for yourself, Mr. Doppler, and go read up on relativity. :D

[shecky]

A politician makes nasty remarks in a private conversation.

I, for one, am shocked and appalled!

Shocked and appalled, I tell you!

[TillEulenspiegel]

Apology ..In my last post I said the new Bush ad said Kerry will raise taxes 900 million dollars. I was wrong . I have just seen the ad and it said 900 BILLION dollars . Sorry for any confusion

[Sundog]

More Republican newspeak. To them, repealing Bush's idiotic tax cuts is a "tax hike". I can't communicate with people who think that way, and feel less and less inclined to try.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Apology ..In my last post I said the new Bush ad said Kerry will raise taxes 900 million dollars. I was wrong . I have just seen the ad and it said 900 BILLION dollars . Sorry for any confusion

There's probably some small print that says over the next 100 year or some such, either way I’d like to see evidence for that (that Kerry will raise taxes by that much).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
More Republican newspeak. To them, repealing Bush's idiotic tax cuts is a "tax hike". I can't communicate with people who think that way, and feel less and less inclined to try. Sundog,

There is no rationale to suppose that taxes must be at any given rate. I don't know if the tax cuts were idiotic. Let's assume for sake of argument that they are. given that vast amounts of our money go down a rat hole and can't even be accounted for, if you rase my taxes it is a tax hike. The money does not belong to the government. It belongs to whomever earns it. Whenever taxes go up, regardless of when or why the went down, it IS a tax hike.

Calling it "newspeak" won't change the fact that you are raising taxes otherwise known as hiking them.

[LFTKBS]

From the SF Gate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/11/politics1446EST0715.DTL):

"As Republican congressional leaders criticized Kerry's proposals and called for him to stop name-calling and negative campaigning, Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said they see Kerry as "Ted Kennedy on a South Beach diet.""

Glad to see that the Republicans are taking the high ground and not making fun of fat people.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Sundog
More Republican newspeak. To them, repealing Bush's idiotic tax cuts is a "tax hike". I can't communicate with people who think that way, and feel less and less inclined to try.

Bush in effect cut the Clinton tax hike slightly for the marginal rates. Maybe they should say "Kerry is trying to reinstitute the Clinton tax hike" instead?

Its not newspeak, a tax increase is a tax increase. The rhetoric could be much worse about it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
"As Republican congressional leaders criticized Kerry's proposals and called for him to stop name-calling and negative campaigning, Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said they see Kerry as "Ted Kennedy on a South Beach diet."" :D

Glad to see that the Republicans are taking the high ground and not making fun of fat people. I think it has been established that there are no good guys. Just politicians.

[Roadtoad]

This whole campaign is becoming more and more repellant as the days go by. My guess is that they're figuring if they can disgust enough people, only the hardcore will show up to vote, and we'll get whoever can muster the most of their core believers. After a while, you get to the point where you're almost ready to let them do just that.

A friend just sent me a link that's claiming Kerry would abandon the War on Terror. I'm tracking that down now, but I doubt I'll find much. I could be wrong. Still, if it is true, that would eliminate Kerry from my consideration. That's far more important to me than what Kerry thinks of Bush.

[Dorian Gray]

Politicians have just added another thinly veiled layer of BS on things. Not only do they sling mud, but they also start out an election year making deals and agreements and such about NOT slinging mud. This one's going to be a WWF election year.

[Reager]

I for one am glad that Kerry didn't apologize. Regardless of whether he should apologize or not, at least Kerry and those 20 Democrats flanking him showed some g*damn backbone for a change.

Mike

[Jocko]

Originally posted by mfeldman
I for one am glad that Kerry didn't apologize. Regardless of whether he should apologize or not, at least Kerry and those 20 Democrats flanking him showed some g*damn backbone for a change.

Mike

Those 20 Democrats won't be behind him come debate time. We'll see how courageous Kerry is when not every banner and sign in the crowd has his name on it.

And if Bush has been so bloody awful, where were the Democratic spines when it might have made a difference? That's not courage, that's opportunism. Those two deserve each other.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Jocko


Those 20 Democrats won't be behind him come debate time. We'll see how courageous Kerry is when not every banner and sign in the crowd has his name on it.


I hope you're wrong.


And if Bush has been so bloody awful, where were the Democratic spines when it might have made a difference? That's not courage, that's opportunism. Those two deserve each other.

Sorry I'm not understanding your point. I never said it was "couragous." Just because Dems have failed to hit Bush as hard as some (myself included) may have liked in the past doesn't mean they are being "oppourtunists" now. And I certainly do think it "makes a difference" that they are standing up to conservative attacks and fighting back. It will make a difference in the upcoming election (I hope).

Mike

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

A friend just sent me a link that's claiming Kerry would abandon the War on Terror.

I guess it depends on how you define the "War on Terror."

Does that include the unrelated and resource-hogging invasion of Iraq? Randomly bombing large buildings a la Clinton in Sudan? One thing: Kerry couldn't be any worse than Bush at catching Osama bin Laden.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02, The New American, 4/8/02

Please not: I have seached for the source of the first quote, and while it's all over the internet, I don't have a definitive source. If you know it, or I have erred, please let me know.

[Reager]

I guess it depends on how you define the "War on Terror."

Exactly. The Bush team is happily criticizing Kerry as "wrong on defense" because of his position on UN approval for the Iraq war and his opposition to how parts of the Patriot Act have been use. I have a difficult time equating the "war on terror" with the invasion of Iraq and the demolition of civil liberties.

Imagine how far we'd go in "the war on terror" if, instead of invading Iraq, we had used that money to:

- Insure that stray Russian, Pakistani, Iranian, or North Korean nuclear weapons and/or technology are accounted for.

- Help safeguard our port cities, nuclear powerplants, and railways from terrorist attacks.

- Prevent radioactive waste materials from falling into the hands of terrorists for use in a "dirty bomb."

Any of these would have a more tangible benefit and make Americans "safer" against terrorism than taking out Saddam Hussein.

Mike

[Sundog]

Originally posted by mfeldman
[B]

Exactly. The Bush team is happily criticizing Kerry as "wrong on defense" because of his position on UN approval for the Iraq war and his opposition to how parts of the Patriot Act have been use. I have a difficult time equating the "war on terror" with the invasion of Iraq and the demolition of civil liberties.
Mike

Yup. Some people's thought processes resemble a baby playing with blocks.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by mfeldman
[B]

Imagine how far we'd go in "the war on terror" if, instead of invading Iraq, we had used that money to:

- Insure that stray Russian, Pakistani, Iranian, or North Korean nuclear weapons and/or technology are accounted for.

- Help safeguard our port cities, nuclear powerplants, and railways from terrorist attacks.

- Prevent radioactive waste materials from falling into the hands of terrorists for use in a "dirty bomb."

Any of these would have a more tangible benefit and make Americans "safer" against terrorism than taking out Saddam Hussein.

Mike

Not at all. These are vagueries. The hard fact most democrats don't want to mention is that is nearly impossible to secure the harbors with current technology. Instead you will have to spend uberbucks on union labor to manually inspect ships. Since charging this to shippers would drive up the price of goods, the tax payers will pick up the bill and voila, you probably aren't much safer. When democrats talk about harbor security, its a codeword for thousands of new goverment jobs that are unionized. Its a giveaway. No candidate wants to be truthful and say "the harbors are just going to be a risk".

However, the war in Iraq was a magnet for mideast muslim extremists. Not only did we take out a state sponsor of terror, but terrorists came to Iraq just to fight and die. Abu Abbas for one won't be pushing anyone off a boat anytime soon. The message we send state sponsors of terror is clear now. The Taliban and Baathist Iraq were defeated, and quickly.

Democrats take a gun control like mentality to terrorism. They somehow think they can legislate or diplomatically remove the tools of terror. The GOP however raids their banks accounts, destroys the countries that sponsor them, and captures/kills the terrorists when they can.

I hate aligning with the party of Pat Robertson as much as anyone else, but the GOP's biblical vengeance approach to terrorism makes more sense to me.

[Reager]

Originally posted by corplinx


Not at all. These are vagueries. The hard fact most democrats don't want to mention is that is nearly impossible to secure the harbors with current technology. Instead you will have to spend uberbucks on union labor to manually inspect ships. Since charging this to shippers would drive up the price of goods, the tax payers will pick up the bill and voila, you probably aren't much safer.

Even following your argument (which I never put forward), why wouldn't we be safer if we inspected ships coming from terrorist-friendly countires? You seem to be saying we wouldn't be safer because the price of good will go up. That doesn't make sense.


Democrats talk about harbor security, its a codeword for thousands of new goverment jobs that are unionized. Its a giveaway. No candidate wants to be truthful and say "the harbors are just going to be a risk".


That's certainly not what I mean when *I* talk about harbor security. The fact is, our ports are not secure and we're doing practically nothing to make then any more secure. Yes, manually inspecting every container of goods is impossible. But that doesn't mean there aren't other solutions.


However, the war in Iraq was a magnet for mideast muslim extremists. Not only did we take out a state sponsor of terror, but terrorists came to Iraq just to fight and die. Abu Abbas for one won't be pushing anyone off a boat anytime soon. The message we send state sponsors of terror is clear now. The Taliban and Baathist Iraq were defeated, and quickly.


Yes, ALL those Taliban in Iraq....


Democrats take a gun control like mentality to terrorism. They somehow think they can legislate or diplomatically remove the tools of terror. The GOP however raids their banks accounts, destroys the countries that sponsor them, and captures/kills the terrorists when they can.


This is simply untrue. Just because some Democrats think there are more important targets in the war on terror than Iraq doesn't mean they believe diplomacy is the only response. How many Democrats supported going into Afghanistan, after all? What Democrats DO recognize, that the current administration seems to ignore, is that sometimes diplomacy and preventative measures help just as much as "killing a bunch of people." For example, providing jobs to ex-Russian nuclear scientists so they won't sell their services to terrosists is a "diplomatic" solution that removes the "tools of terror."

Mike

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by corplinx

However, the war in Iraq was a magnet for mideast muslim extremists.

Yes, it was. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/02/sprj.nirq.explosions/index.html)

Originally posted by corplinx

Not only did we take out a state sponsor of terror, but terrorists came to Iraq just to fight and die.

You're right. I forgot that all the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis. (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020930&s=zunes)

Originally posted by corplinx

The Taliban and Baathist Iraq were defeated, and quickly.

We're not (The Taliban and Baathist Iraq were defeated, and quickly.) done (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/10/sprj.nirq.main/index.html) yet. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/25/sprj.nirq.main/index.html)


Originally posted by corplinx

I hate aligning with the party of Pat Robertson as much as anyone else, but the GOP's biblical vengeance approach to terrorism makes more sense to me.

Works (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/28/mideast.violence/index.html) for (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/18/west.bank.violence/index.html) Israel. (http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by mfeldman


Even following your argument (which I never put forward), why wouldn't we be safer if we inspected ships coming from terrorist-friendly countires? You seem to be saying we wouldn't be safer because the price of good will go up. That doesn't make sense.


The planes that hit the WTC weren't flying in from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea, or Iran.

They weren't flyng in from Egypt, France, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Phillipines, Malaysia, or the Chechen Russia.

The weren't even flying in from Spain, the UK, or Germany.

I hope the point I am making here is obvious enough without having to elaborate.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


You're right. I forgot that all the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis. (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020930&s=zunes)




Pardon me but this is the most annoying mealy mouthed arguement I have ever seen. That somehow the war on terror should only include Bin Laden's own network.

That somehow supporting the overthrow of a state sponsor of terrorism like Iraq is not right because they didn't provide direct support for Bin Laden.

I am sorry for not being more diplomatic and using words like "mealy mouth" but this line of thinking annoys me to no end.

If you don't see how the overthrow of Saddam was a large step in the war on terror, then I don't have much hope of convincing you otherwise.

You do realize that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism?

[Reager]

Originally posted by corplinx


The planes that hit the WTC weren't flying in from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea, or Iran.

They weren't flyng in from Egypt, France, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Phillipines, Malaysia, or the Chechen Russia.

The weren't even flying in from Spain, the UK, or Germany.

I hope the point I am making here is obvious enough without having to elaborate.

No it's not ovious enough, because you're not making any sense. Please explain how implementing measures designed to make American ports safer will actually make them less safe because the price of goods will go up.

And while your at it you can explain how paying Russians to safeguard their nuclear bombs and technology is a sissy diplomatic solution that is not "fighting terrorism."

Mike

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by corplinx
Pardon me but this is the most annoying mealy mouthed arguement I have ever seen. That somehow the war on terror should only include Bin Laden's own network.


Uh, dude, we were only attacked by ObL's network. Iraq hadn't attacked anyone since the first Gulf War. They had no WMDs and a fifth-rate military.

We can't just go 'round blowing up people because one day their government might attack someone. There's a difference between pre-emptive war and preventive war.

"You do realize that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Huh. I guess we're going to war with Uzbekistan next?

[Dorian Gray]

NOT TO MENTION Saudi Arabia.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by mfeldman


Even following your argument (which I never put forward), why wouldn't we be safer if we inspected ships coming from terrorist-friendly countires? You seem to be saying we wouldn't be safer because the price of good will go up. That doesn't make sense.

Because then you'd be branded a racist, just like fingerprinting visitors to the US has prompted cries of racism, and that would give the terrorists a whole new reason to hate us.

That's certainly not what I mean when *I* talk about harbor security. The fact is, our ports are not secure and we're doing practically nothing to make then any more secure. Yes, manually inspecting every container of goods is impossible. But that doesn't mean there aren't other solutions.

If they aren't solutions we can implement, how can they be a valid campaign issue? Can Kerry come out in favor of the "cargo inpection fairy" to secure our ports? Or is he going to stick to his idea of "job creation" with millions of new paychecks coming straight from the Treasury? I'll bet on the latter, with suitable layers of obscuring rhetoric.

Yes, ALL those Taliban in Iraq....

You'd have to look pretty hard to find a Taliban member, yes... ever consider why they're so rare these days?

And let's just ignore the Iranian, Syrian, Jordanian and Palestinian terrorists who have flooded in. If they're not Taliban, they're not worth confronting, right?

This is simply untrue. Just because some Democrats think there are more important targets in the war on terror than Iraq doesn't mean they believe diplomacy is the only response. How many Democrats supported going into Afghanistan, after all? What Democrats DO recognize, that the current administration seems to ignore, is that sometimes diplomacy and preventative measures help just as much as "killing a bunch of people." For example, providing jobs to ex-Russian nuclear scientists so they won't sell their services to terrosists is a "diplomatic" solution that removes the "tools of terror."


1. Of course the Democrats supported Afghanistan, it was like TWO MONTHS AFTER 9/11! It would have been political suicide to do anything else.

2. In your scientist selling to terrorists scenario, buying off the scientist isn't the only way to nullify that equation. How about icing the SOB terrorist? No terrorist, no sale. And if we can't find the terrorist, what makes you think we can find a rogue scientist?

If you really think the war on terror is about "just killing a bunch of people," then I don't see how any example will sway you. It's about killing a bunch of the RIGHT people and setting an example for the rest. Notice how we've had no new attacks (just a lot of BS braggadocio) from our old pals in al Qaeda? Coincidence, or is it just conceivable that chasing the bastards down - even if we step on French toes doing it - may be the best course of action?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Grammatron


There's probably some small print that says over the next 100 year or some such, either way I’d like to see evidence for that (that Kerry will raise taxes by that much).

You are correct sir. The figure in the political ad was a projection over 10 yrs. which was based on Whitehouse figures. doubtlessly neutral.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


I guess it depends on how you define the "War on Terror."

Does that include the unrelated and resource-hogging invasion of Iraq? Randomly bombing large buildings a la Clinton in Sudan? One thing: Kerry couldn't be any worse than Bush at catching Osama bin Laden.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02, The New American, 4/8/02

Please not: I have seached for the source of the first quote, and while it's all over the internet, I don't have a definitive source. If you know it, or I have erred, please let me know.

You make a valid point. Much of what falls under the heading "War on Terror" has nothing to do with searching out ObL, (which damn well OUGHT to be a priority). I'm still trying to run the whole thing down, though I was given on another thread the full text of his speech from his website.

I don't trust Kerry, nor do I trust Bush. Neither one of them is someone I'd vote for if I had other, better choices.

(Sorry for the late response. I just got in off the road from Reno. Another driver flaked out, and I got stuck pulling his f***ing load. Stupid bastard.)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Speaking of irony, what do you make of Kerry saying, "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen" while speaking to a union bigwig? :p

"It takes two to know one".

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

...

Please not: I have seached for the source of the first quote, and while it's all over the internet, I don't have a definitive source. If you know it, or I have erred, please let me know.

I smell a fake. The only place Lexis Nexis turns up a match for this quote is in letters to the editor.

Aha, however I did find this:

"He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match," Bush said of the suspected mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks. "I truly am not that concerned about him."


From the AP, March 13, 2002.
HEADLINE: Bush says U.S. will 'deal with' Saddam, calls bin Laden is 'ultimate parasite'

[Nasarius]

Here's the full transcript of that press conference:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/bush.transcript/

QUESTION: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?

BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.

I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Sundog
More Republican newspeak. To them, repealing Bush's idiotic tax cuts is a "tax hike". I can't communicate with people who think that way, and feel less and less inclined to try. Don't let them confound you into silence. That's exactly what they want. Explain the logic of your position to everyone who'll listen, persistently and forcefully. If just enough people become aware of Bush's redistribution of wealth up the food chain, he might be booted.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by hgc
Don't let them confound you into silence. That's exactly what they want. Explain the logic of your position to everyone who'll listen, persistently and forcefully. If just enough people become aware of Bush's redistribution of wealth up the food chain, he might be booted. That would be great if there was some logic to it.

The statement presumes that there is some equilibrium of taxes and spending, or a "correct" amount with which to tax people. It assumes NO responsibility on the part of government to spend OUR money in a fiscally responsible way.

Never mind that much of that money is wasted and absconded with. Our government can't even tell us where all of that money goes. It just goes. And they want more of it and they want to spend more of it. And yes Bush is acting like an idiot handing out cash as if the US is one great big ATM.

No, don't look at spending, don't look at waste, the problem is taxes. If taxes (money that is taken away from people who earn it) are reduced, it is a give away to the rich. If the taxes are increased it is, SURPRISE NOT A TAX HIKE.

Wow, I was talking in another thread about fools logic.

And how do we know what is the correct amount? Well hell, Bush lowered taxes and jobs went down and the economy went down.

Must be cause and effect, right? Never mind that the economy was in a downward trend 12 months before Clinton left office. Never mind that we were attacked on 9/11 and the travel industry was decimated. Never mind that an unprecedented and false economic bubble burst. Never mind that businesses wanting to extend the fake market were cooking the books (hey they were all friends of Bush, that is his fault also).

Nope, we are all economic experts, we read propaganda...err...commentary that tells us it was all Bush's fault and we believe. And the only evidence that ostensibly critically thinking people will consider is that the lowering of the tax rate is the only reason that things are the way they are. And if there had been a Bill Clinton or Al Gore in office we would not have had a net loss of jobs.

Therefore, if we raise taxes it is NOT a tax hike.

I understand ideology. I understand passion. I understand the visceral contempt and vilification of Bush.

I don't understand sacrificing ones objectivity for ego.

[hgc]

Originally posted by RandFan
That would be great if there was some logic to it.

The statement presumes that there is some equilibrium of taxes and spending, or a "correct" amount with which to tax people. It assumes NO responsibility on the part of government to spend OUR money in a fiscally responsible way.I make no such presumption. There are so many variables, no one can know what the "correct" amount is, so it effectively doesn't exist. But we can strive to approximate accurately, and move in this or that direction, in the attempt to maximize the long term benefit of our society.Never mind that much of that money is wasted and absconded with. Our government can't even tell us where all of that money goes. It just goes. And they want more of it and they want to spend more of it. And yes Bush is acting like an idiot handing out cash as if the US is one great big ATM.

No, don't look at spending, don't look at waste, the problem is taxes.I have no illusions about the inefficiencies and graft in such a large enterprise as the USA. Once again, the best we can do is to continually struggle to root out waste where it occurs If taxes (money that is taken away from people who earn it) are reduced, it is a give away to the rich. If the taxes are increased it is, SURPRISE NOT A TAX HIKE.If taxes are cut for the rich, it might just be a give-away to the rich. I like how you only include the "rich" on the negative side of your sentence (give away) not on the positive side (taxes are reduced).

I don't have a problem with calling it a tax increase/hike/whatever, but it's not that simple. You don't think the states are going to make up for their lost federal contributions by taking it out on their taxpayers some way? You don't think we pay in other ways to operate the government when there's less revenue from income taxes? We do, long term (debt, retiree benefits, infrastructure repairs) and short term in cutbacks to crucial programs to give a measure of justice and comfort to our poorest sector (legal assistance, food assistance, drug treatment, etc). I implored Sundog to argue for his position, not to change the terminology.

Wow, I was talking in another thread about fools logic.

And how do we know what is the correct amount? Well hell, Bush lowered taxes and jobs went down and the economy went down.

Must be cause and effect, right? Never mind that the economy was in a downward trend 12 months before Clinton left office. Never mind that we were attacked on 9/11 and the travel industry was decimated. Never mind that an unprecedented and false economic bubble burst. Never mind that businesses wanting to extend the fake market were cooking the books (hey they were all friends of Bush, that is his fault also).

Nope, we are all economic experts, we read propaganda...err...commentary that tells us it was all Bush's fault and we believe. And the only evidence that ostensibly critically thinking people will consider is that the lowering of the tax rate is the only reason that things are the way they are. And if there had been a Bill Clinton or Al Gore in office we would not have had a net loss of jobs.As stated above, I am very concerned about the long-term trends.

Therefore, if we raise taxes it is NOT a tax hike.

I understand ideology. I understand passion. I understand the visceral contempt and vilification of Bush.

I don't understand sacrificing ones objectivity for ego. You talking to me? You must have me confused with someone else.

So the overarching point is, since Reagan, the tax burden on the wealthier segment has been continually reduced. And they have control over an increasing percentage of our national wealth. Corporate tax loopholes allow many profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes at all, and it ain't just investment credits. Top that with the elimination of the fictional "double taxation" of dividends, and coporations and their shareholders pay no taxes on corporate profits. But that's not enough, the income tax has to come down too. Essentially this is a defacto rollback of the scheme of progressive tax rates. It costs a lot of money to operate this country. I believe that businesses use our resources to further their gains (roads and everything else that allows 300 million people to live together and prosper). The top brackets' marginal rates were reduced from astronomical percentages, and that's a good thing. But they are paying less and less, and we're going to go to the crapper for it.

By the way, the Dems have abetted this historic crime every step of the way. Just look at the S&L fiasco. The taxpayers of the country guaranteed deposits up to $100K through FSLIC. In exchange we rightfully demand some oversight so as to protect our investment. But Reagan, with the help of a Democratic-controlled Congress removed all regulation, and we ended up paying $200 billion to meet our obligation. That's an example of the cost of not investing in our governmental structures. The alternative? Don't protect depositors. Let them sink. I think we decided (not all of us, see Libertarian Party) long ago that the chaos that follows is disruptive to our society.

Sorry for the long, somewhat off-topic rant. I am very alarmed. You want to call it class warfare? You want to call it stealing from the rich to throw it down the toilet? Go ahead. The rich get rich because our country is organized to give all kinds of people that opportunity. That costs a lot of money. I think the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest income brackets are not the right kind of investments. After a point, they are a divestment in our future.

[RandFan]

hgc, thank you very much for the response.

Originally posted by hgc
I make no such presumption. There are so many variables, no one can know what the "correct" amount is, so it effectively doesn't exist. But we can strive to approximate accurately, and move in this or that direction, in the attempt to maximize the long term benefit of our society. My point was directed at Sundog's assertion.

I have no illusions about the inefficiencies and graft in such a large enterprise as the USA. Once again, the best we can do is to continually struggle to root out waste where it occurs.With all due respect I disagree. I was in management for a small corporation for 9 years. One of the jobs of management was to reduce wasteful spending. We all thought we were doing a pretty good job until our company took a major hit financially and we were forced to make some very uncomfortable cuts to balance our books or we would have to close our doors (long sentence {wew}. We didn't close our doors, we made the cuts and our production remained the same. When I was first married my wife and I thought we had money problems. I learned what real money problems were after I had 3 children and I lost my job. I learned that what I had previously thought were money problems were actually financial irresponsibility.

It's amazing what can happen when one is forced to make changes.

Doing our best to reduce inneficiencies and graft is, to me, meaningless. It is rhetorical and ignores human nature, complacency and greed.

If taxes are cut for the rich, it might just be a give-away to the rich. I like how you only include the "rich" on the negative side of your sentence (give away) not on the positive side (taxes are reduced).I don't understand?

I don't have a problem with calling it a tax increase/hike/whatever, but it's not that simple. You don't think the states are going to make up for their lost federal contributions by taking it out on their taxpayers some way? You don't think we pay in other ways to operate the government when there's less revenue from income taxes? We do, long term (debt, retiree benefits, infrastructure repairs) and short term in cutbacks to crucial programs to give a measure of justice and comfort to our poorest sector (legal assistance, food assistance, drug treatment, etc). Before Bush's tax cut, in each of the previous three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue (http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=676)
Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990. Perception is greater than reality

I implored Sundog to argue for his position, not to change the terminology. Faire enough.

You talking to me? You must have me confused with someone else. I'm talking to whomever shares Sundog's sentiment.

So the overarching point is, since Reagan, the tax burden on the wealthier segment has been continually reduced.See above

And they have control over an increasing percentage of our national wealth. Corporate tax loopholes allow many profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes at all, and it ain't just investment credits. Top that with the elimination of the fictional "double taxation" of dividends, and corporations and their shareholders pay no taxes on corporate profits. But that's not enough, the income tax has to come down too. Essentially this is a de facto rollback of the scheme of progressive tax rates. It costs a lot of money to operate this country. I believe that businesses use our resources to further their gains (roads and everything else that allows 300 million people to live together and prosper). The top brackets' marginal rates were reduced from astronomical percentages, and that's a good thing. But they are paying less and less, and we're going to go to the crapper for it.

By the way, the Dems have abetted this historic crime every step of the way. Just look at the S&L fiasco. The taxpayers of the country guaranteed deposits up to $100K through FSLIC. In exchange we rightfully demand some oversight so as to protect our investment. But Reagan, with the help of a Democratic-controlled Congress removed all regulation, and we ended up paying $200 billion to meet our obligation. That's an example of the cost of not investing in our governmental structures. The alternative? Don't protect depositors. Let them sink. I think we decided (not all of us, see Libertarian Party) long ago that the chaos that follows is disruptive to our society. I am not in favor of so called corporate welfare. I am also in favor of oversight and regulation (all that is needed and no more).

Sorry for the long, somewhat off-topic rant. I am very alarmed. You want to call it class warfare? You want to call it stealing from the rich to throw it down the toilet? Wasn't it the movie "All the President's Men" that said "follow the money"? Coming from deep throat it sounded like some mysterious secret, yet it strikes us immediately as true. There is nothing mysterious about it. When you understand human nature and economics then you understand why it is bad to give government what ever it claims it needs to provide for governmental programs and services. The market, due to market forces, is to a large degree self regulating. The government is not. And there is an entire ideology devoted to protecting the government's best interests by engaging in class warfare.

Now don't get me wrong, the intentions of those who do are by and large honest and good.

Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue (http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=676)
It pays to engage in class warfare if you are a politician because it divides voters against each other. When the perception is that only the "rich" will profit from a tax cut, such policies [lowering taxes to increase revenue] become difficult to sell because those labeled as "rich" tend to be in the minority.

Go ahead. The rich get rich because our country is organized to give all kinds of people that opportunity. That costs a lot of money. I think the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest income brackets are not the right kind of investments. After a point, they are a divestment in our future. I respect your opinion. My point is aimed at the rhetoric of accusing republicans of double speak by stating the truth. It is a tax hike. Whether it is right or good for our country at this stage of the game is arguable. Engaging in semantical arguments are of no value.

I hope I was coherent.

Again, thanks hgc

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Nasarius


I smell a fake. The only place Lexis Nexis turns up a match for this quote is in letters to the editor.

Aha, however I did find this:

From the AP, March 13, 2002.
HEADLINE: Bush says U.S. will 'deal with' Saddam, calls bin Laden is 'ultimate parasite'

"He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match," Bush said of the suspected mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks. "I truly am not that concerned about him."



Good catch, Nasarius. I don't have access to L-N anymore, so I'm glad I put the note up on that one.