Ike's son (John Eisenhower) endorses Kerry

[Tricky]

First Reagan's son, now this.

Quote:

In a rare public announcement, Eisenhower said he switched his party affiliation from Republican to independent after 50 years after losing confidence in his former party.
...
"Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance," he wrote.
...
""The fact is that today's 'Republican' Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word 'Republican' has always been synonymous with the word 'responsibility,' which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms."

Appeal to authority? Absolutely. Black eye for Bush. Definately.

[DavidJames]

Damn liberals, if his father were alive, he'd be rolling over in his grave

[Snide]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
Damn liberals, if his father were alive, he'd be rolling over in his grave

...and clawing desperately.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
Black eye for Bush. Definately.

Wishful thinking. Before the report, nobody even heard of this guy. He has less impact than the guy at your neighborhood corner bar.

Is this the best punch the Dems can throw? The son of a President from 40-odd years ago? What next? Abraham Lincoln's great-great-grandson votes Democratic?

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
Wishful thinking. Before the report, nobody even heard of this guy. He has less impact than the guy at your neighborhood corner bar.

Is this the best punch the Dems can throw? The son of a President from 40-odd years ago? What next? Abraham Lincoln's great-great-grandson votes Democratic?

It is not a knockout punch by any means, but it could swing a few votes, especially among older voters who remember Eisenhower and back when the Republican party stood for fiscal responsibility and they had a social conscience.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
Wishful thinking. Before the report, nobody even heard of this guy. He has less impact than the guy at your neighborhood corner bar.

Is this the best punch the Dems can throw? The son of a President from 40-odd years ago? What next? Abraham Lincoln's great-great-grandson votes Democratic?

Guess what, I've heard of the guy before now.

And he's right. I think his dad would be saying the same thing by now.

This is, after all, the same repugnican party that kicked BARRY GOLDWATER out of it for being too liberal a few years before Barry died, and even changed the name on his library, temporarily.

I'm surprised that more people don't point that out. It shows the extremist intolerance that represents the CENTER of the repugnican party. I mean, they kicked out "Mr. Conservative" for (*&(*&' sake.

It's a fact.

[pgwenthold]

A lot of people have recognized how this so-called "republican" administration is anything but conservative. For most people, conservative means things like smaller government, less government intrusion, and spending within ones means. For example, my very fiscally conservative father and brother are exceedlingly reluctant to borrow, unless absolutely necessary. If you can't pay, you can't afford it. Yet this adminstration has been nothing like this at all. Instead of a smaller government, they want to amend the constitution to increase government intrusion. Instead of fiscal responsibility, they run record deficits and just borrow the money. Hey, I won't claim that democrats control spending, but at least they try to pay for what the spend. Tell me again about who are the fiscally responsible ones: The ones who make sure they have money before they spend it? Or the ones who just keep maxing out their credit cards?

From a military perspective, remember in the old days when the republican criticism of democrats was that they were the ones who started all the wars? FDR got us into WWII, Truman got us in Korea, JFK/LBJ got us in Vietnam. Yep, those democrats are the ones who are always bringing us to war. In fact, this criticism was actually used by a Republican candidate in a presidential debate (by Ford, I think). Nowadays, the problem with Democrats is that they aren't gung-ho enough about going to war.

I really can't understand conservatives can support Bush in any way. Of course, many conservatives have made it known that they don't. Time for people to listen.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I really can't understand conservatives can support Bush in any way. Of course, many conservatives have made it known that they don't. Time for people to listen.

But they can't support Kerry either. Like many conservatives, I am voting against Kerry more than I am voting for Bush.

Now if the Democrats had put Lieberman up against Bush, they just might have gotten my vote.

[Luke T.]

Ike's kid should have brought up his beef to the Republican Party long before this election.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
Ike's kid should have brought up his beef to the Republican Party long before this election.

How do you know he didn't?

It took Barry Goldwater's being thrown out of the repugncan party to get a change in Arizona. It's safe to say that Barry was never, ever shy of saying just by (*&&(* he thought, now, isn't it, and that didn't stop them.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
But they can't support Kerry either. Like many conservatives, I am voting against Kerry more than I am voting for Bush.


This conservative is voting for Kerry, on a "least evil" platform.


Now if the Democrats had put Lieberman up against Bush, they just might have gotten my vote.

Leiberman isn't a liberal, he's an arch-conservative democrat. What's the point there?

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
How do you know he didn't?

It took Barry Goldwater's being thrown out of the repugncan party to get a change in Arizona. It's safe to say that Barry was never, ever shy of saying just by (*&&(* he thought, now, isn't it, and that didn't stop them.

Goldwater took himself out of the Republican party. He took to calling himself a liberal and favored abortion and gay rights. Hardly a conservative position.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
Leiberman isn't a liberal, he's an arch-conservative democrat. What's the point there?

The point is that just as Bush is influenced by the far right, so Kerry is being influenced by the far left. Of the three, Lieberman seems a far better choice to me.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
The point is that just as Bush is influenced by the far right, so Kerry is being influenced by the far left. Of the three, Lieberman seems a far better choice to me.

Come on. Kerry is moderate to slightly conservative. He doesn't have a whiff of 'far left' in him, look who he's married to, for cripe's sake!

The pendulum is so, so, so far to the right, media included, in this country, that except for those of us old enough to have seen it, nobody knows what a leftist is these days.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
The pendulum is so, so, so far to the right, media included, in this country, that except for those of us old enough to have seen it, nobody knows what a leftist is these days.

Well, as long as we all agree it's suspiciously leftist to insist on things like constitutional rights.....lol. [/bitterness]

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
First Reagan's son, now this.


Appeal to authority? Absolutely. Black eye for Bush. Definately.

So what? I'm a republican and Amy Carter gave me head last weekend.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
Come on. Kerry is moderate to slightly conservative. He doesn't have a whiff of 'far left' in him, look who he's married to, for cripe's sake!

The pendulum is so, so, so far to the right, media included, in this country, that except for those of us old enough to have seen it, nobody knows what a leftist is these days.

Kerry's recent anti-war stance is a clear indication of influence from the left. And he is pro-choice. And has a hardon for "the top 1 percent" as a vehicle to raise taxes, which is pure left rhetoric.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
Kerry's recent anti-war stance is a clear indication of influence from the left.


Luke, anti-war sentiment is not necessarily from any "left" or "right". I know that some of the fanatical right-wing types would like us all to believe that, but any look through history shows that anti-war sentiment is not an indicator of left/right. Why don't we look at the anti-war sentiment in previous generations. It's not necessarilyl leftist, by any means.


And he is pro-choice.


That's a religious issue, not a left/right issue.


And has a hardon for "the top 1 percent" as a vehicle to raise taxes, which is pure left rhetoric.

It's a fact that the most recent tax cuts benefitted mostly the top % or so of people who file tax returns. In that, he's right, it's a welfare program for the people who need it least. Why should any of us support that?

Those are facts. I'm quite sure that at least some of the reason that the tax cuts were arranged so they were was so that they could be defended against "leftism", but that's pure nonsense. The most recent round of tax cuts was nothing more than a present to the ultra-wealthy.

Now, I am not saying that anyone should soak them, I think THAT would be "leftist" rhetoric. We should just have rules that play out fairly for all IN PRACTICE.

Let's look at those tax-cut rules. People with money in funds or stocks make out. People who actually make homes for others by buying and operating real estate (something that the ultra-rich don't directly do) do NOT get a tax cut. That particular, indefensible inequity is leftist in and of itself. The tax cut ITSELF is leftist, in that it's the "soak the property owners" kind of tax cut.

If Kerry is doing anything there, he's objecting to things like that leftist slant to the last tax cut. Goodness, Luke, the facts are clear. I have seen leftist rhetoric. Kerry isn't close. As far as I can tell, he's still on the edge of conservative, not even moderate territory.

The farther-left espouses socialism. Kerry is a capitalist. His wife is an avowed, competent, rampaging capitalist.

The extreme left is communist. Kerry would be one of the first they'd shoot.

The moderate left supports a whole plethora of pseudo-socialistic programs that Kerry hasn't even come out for.

By any sane, sensible, and justifiable standard, Kerry is a right-leaning moderate. That's just how it is. That is, really, an unarguable fact. That we are having this discussion shows just how dishonestly, maliciously biased both this campaign and much of the news media around it actually are.

I suggest that you read about the use of propaganda in the rise of totalitarian states, Luke. You won't like what you read, and you'll find the techniques implied here right up front, with you as one of the major targets of the big lie. Do you really want to allow others to lie to you like that?

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
His wife is an avowed, competent, rampaging capitalist.

Lol. Great word choice. I shall never be able to see her in the news again without looking to see if she's on the verge of a rampage.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Well, as long as we all agree it's suspiciously leftist to insist on things like constitutional rights.....lol. [/bitterness]

It does seem that way. When we have deliberate, obvious liars claiming nonsense like "this is a Christian nation" and "the founders were Christian", we see an attempt to dishonestly, maliciously rewrite history in an attempt to destroy everything the founders intended. When we see those who point out the simple, obvious facts of the founding of this country "leftists", we see the dishonest, raving malice involved.

The reason this country rose to greatness was its avoidance of religion in the government, and in the policies around governing, science, etc. The last administration has directly injected religion into things like stem cell research, deliberately, conciously chosen to disable scientific progress, and supported calls for things like "creation science" that are directly opposite the actual thing that made this country great.

Science is what made this country, and now science has nearly failed in this country. Research is failing, disappearing, and being meddled with everywhere one looks. Advancements are happening overseas because of both shortsighted religious and business policies, policies supported by shortsighted tax laws. The fact is simple, an attack on science is an attack on the foundation of this country, and that's what we see from Bush, from the religious right, and inexplicably from the lunatic left, all at the same time.

This country is already headed (look at the statististics, folks, it's entirely visible there) into another round of stagflation like that resuting from Vietnam, another round of global isolation, and this time, unlike the last time, we'll be third-rate in technology as well as in foreign policy.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
This country is already headed (look at the statististics, folks, it's entirely visible there) into another round of stagflation like that resuting from Vietnam, another round of global isolation, and this time, unlike the last time, we'll be third-rate in technology as well as in foreign policy.

Don't be so pessimistic. But then, I can afford to be optimistic, since I make my living using third-rate technology.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Don't be so pessimistic. But then, I can afford to be optimistic, since I make my living using third-rate technology.

What do you do, then?

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
What do you do, then?

ASP programmer. It's like everything fun and decent...only Microsoft's version.

[Luke T.]

It would be nice if the people smarter than me on here would learn how to use the vbb functions like the quote function around here...

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
Luke, anti-war sentiment is not necessarily from any "left" or "right". I know that some of the fanatical right-wing types would like us all to believe that, but any look through history shows that anti-war sentiment is not an indicator of left/right. Why don't we look at the anti-war sentiment in previous generations. It's not necessarilyl leftist, by any means.

Yeah. Okay. And I suppose the Young Republicans are behind the current anti-war movement as they were during Vietnam? You are cracking me up, jj!

Quote:

That's a religious issue, not a left/right issue.

I will remind you of this the next time you talk about the "Religious Right" that supposedly has Bush's balls in their hands.

When's the last time you heard of the Religious Left?

Quote:

It's a fact that the most recent tax cuts benefitted mostly the top % or so of people who file tax returns. In that, he's right, it's a welfare program for the people who need it least. Why should any of us support that?

As I said. Classic leftist rhetoric.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
I suggest that you read about the use of propaganda in the rise of totalitarian states, Luke. You won't like what you read, and you'll find the techniques implied here right up front, with you as one of the major targets of the big lie. Do you really want to allow others to lie to you like that?

I have seen all the totalitarian propaganda I want to see on internationalanswer.org and stormfront.org, jj.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
Yeah. Okay. And I suppose the Young Republicans are behind the current anti-war movement as they were during Vietnam? You are cracking me up, jj!


Straw man, argument ad populum. You can do better, Luke.


I will remind you of this the next time you talk about the "Religious Right" that supposedly has Bush's balls in their hands.


Straw man, argumentum ad obfucatum, assumes facts not in evidence.


When's the last time you heard of the Religious Left?


Without elucidation, sounds like an oxymoron. As such, until it is elucidated, it's a straw man.


As I said. Classic leftist rhetoric.

Let me get this straight, asking for repeal of a deliberate, expressed break for only the richest of people is "classic leftist rhetoric"?

Stuff and nonsense. Bush's tax cut was a fraud, it cheated everyone but the most wealthy people. Asking for equity is not either leftist or rightist, it's asking for justice.

If you're trying to deeply insult me, you've succeeded. I've just written you off,.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
I have seen all the totalitarian propaganda I want to see on internationalanswer.org and stormfront.org, jj.

Begging the question.

The question is "What political and propaganda methods were used during the rise of the Third Reich"?

Stormfront is deceptive, slimey, and disgusting. At least we agree on that.

I'm surprised you can't see the same techniques that the stormfronters use when this administration uses them on you.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
Let me get this straight, asking for repeal of a deliberate, expressed break for only the richest of people is "classic leftist rhetoric"?

I think I paid around 1200 dollars in federal income tax and then got the 300 dollars back that everyone else got. That was 25 percent of my taxes returned to me. And I am a long, long, long way from the top one percenters, jj.

I dont' buy Kerry's claim he will only increase taxes for the top 1 percent. Not for a second.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
Begging the question.

The question is "What political and propaganda methods were used during the rise of the Third Reich"?

Stormfront is deceptive, slimey, and disgusting. At least we agree on that.

I'm surprised you can't see the same techniques that the stormfronters use when this administration uses them on you.

I also recognize that the very use of the word "totalitarian" is a leftist propaganda tool.

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.

Yeah. Okay. And I suppose the Young Republicans are behind the current anti-war movement as they were during Vietnam? You are cracking me up, jj!

There are leftists in the anti-war movement. There are also libertarians (quite a large part of it, actually), republicans, democrats, all types.

Quote:

I will remind you of this the next time you talk about the "Religious Right" that supposedly has Bush's balls in their hands.

When's the last time you heard of the Religious Left?

You mean like the American Friends Service Committee (Quakers), Christian Peacemaker Teams, Every Church a Peace Church, Jewish Voice for Peace, Unitarian Universalists (arguably), Concerned Black Clergy, Rabbis for Human Rights, the Catholic Worker movement, and so on? Nope. Never heard of 'em. Never heard of 'em at all.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
I also recognize that the very use of the word "totalitarian" is a leftist propaganda tool.

So, then, support for a totalitarian government is not leftist, but using the word to point out what the outcome of a policy is, is somehow "leftist"?

This is like the argument regarding taxes, when I ask for justice, I get disingeniously called a leftist.

Justice, therefore, is leftist?

So, what is rightist?

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
So, then, support for a totalitarian government is not leftist, but using the word to point out what the outcome of a policy is, is somehow "leftist"?

This is like the argument regarding taxes, when I ask for justice, I get disingeniously called a leftist.

Justice, therefore, is leftist?

So, what is rightist?

Just because you say it is a totalitarian government doesn't make it so. You are using the same "big lie" tactic you are accusing the government of.

I want justice in taxes as well. That doesn't mean we should raise them. My idea of justice when it comes to taxes is that everybody pays LESS. Even the rich bastards. You think it just that the rich have to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes? That's your idea of justice? That sounds fair to you?

Your logic is all wrong here, jj.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
Just because you say it is a totalitarian government doesn't make it so. You are using the same "big lie" tactic you are accusing the government of.


Really, then explain the Patriot act, and how it's been applied, now, to citizens as well as non-citizens. Sorry, the facts are there, so it's not a lie.


I want justice in taxes as well. That doesn't mean we should raise them.


So? I agree. Except for one thing, either this government stops spending money hand over fist, or we pay more taxes, OR our kids pay, and pay, and pay, and pay....

I don't particularly like any of the alternatives, but lowering taxes without lowering spending by a lot is just a slow death sentence.


My idea of justice when it comes to taxes is that everybody pays LESS. Even the rich bastards. You think it just that the rich have to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes? That's your idea of justice? That sounds fair to you?


No, that's a deliberate, hostile characture of my position, and you knew it when you wrote it.

Somebody has to pay for this war, in terms of money, bodies, and loss of national standing, and it's not Bush, not Cheyney, it's us, Luke, it's us who pay.


Your logic is all wrong here, jj.

You haven't proven a bit of that. All you've done is throw a bunch of things at me that you propose are my positions. Either you're acting out of ignorance or malice. I have no idea, but I don't appreciate you telling me what I think. I wouldn't even appreciate it if you were right, and you're not.

Like it or not, Kerry is, if we lean him as far to the left as we can, a rightist moderate. Where that puts Bush is just scary.

[Luke T.]

jj, I am tired of trying to undo the quote muckups you make, so I'll just reply without them.

I did not like the Patriot Act from the moment it passed. And I was as caught up in anger over 9/11 as anyone. But Bush didn't write the Patriot Act, and the vast majority of Congress, including Kerry, voted for it with zeal. They lined up to get in the glow of the spotlight. No one has protested, quoted from, dissected, and analyzed the Patriot Act on here more than I. And I have tried to make everyone here and on SC aware of the fact that not all of the Patriot Act sunsets next year. A good deal of it is permanent and must be actively repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court. And that is going to take a decade or more.

The chances are also very good that those parts of the Act which expire next year will be extended no matter who we the people elect next month. Especially if there is another terrorist attack.

Some people call me crazy or making a slippery slope argument when I say that the Patriot Act will eventually be used outside its original intent, just as the RICO Act now is being used by the Bush Administration to go after cigarette manufacturers.

(edited to add: And I would just like to repeat my belief that the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and a new National Intelligence Director is also very stupid. Just what we need, more layers of bureacracy! As if that is what we were lacking to prevent 9/11. )

As for spending, I've exhausted myself talking about that with Sundog on SC. I will summarize by saying that yes, Bush is spending money like a sailor in a whorehouse, but I believe Kerry will spend money like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse. But I also believe the solution to paying for it is not raising taxes. The solution is to lower taxes and stimulate the economy. This will actually increase revenue to the government. (edited to add: And of course we must cut spending.)

I make no bones about the fact that this election is a lesser of two evils choice for me. I think it is for the majority of people who will be voting this year. And maybe that is why this cycle has been above average in ugliness. Because when your candidate sucks so bad as to be practically indefensible, it is easier to attack the other guy's candidate. I don't like it, but that's the reality.

[crimresearch]

When's the last time you heard of the Religious Left?

Who was ignorant enough to post that?

Obviously not anyone who has ever concerned themselves with any liberal causes, else they would have seen the 'religious left' like the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Unitarian Universalists, Unity, and many more, showing up for civil rights actions, peace vigils, and such.
And that isn't even taking into account those who are liberal and involve themselves in Eastern religions, etc.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
When's the last time you heard of the Religious Left?

Who was ignorant enough to post that?

Obviously not anyone who has ever concerned themselves with any liberal causes, else they would have seen the 'religious left' like the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Unitarian Universalists, Unity, and many more, showing up for civil rights actions, peace vigils, and such.
And that isn't even taking into account those who are liberal and involve themselves in Eastern religions, etc.

In terms of the Presidential Election, the "religious left" has zero impact or influence.

Google "religious right" and you get 361,000 results. Google "religious left" and you get 20,700.

[crimresearch]

Well, the way it was cut and pasted, it came across as an anti-war reference, not as a head count of voters (which doesn't occur in the US anyway).


*************************************************
There are leftists in the anti-war movement. There are also libertarians (quite a large part of it, actually), republicans, democrats, all types.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will remind you of this the next time you talk about the "Religious Right" that supposedly has Bush's balls in their hands.

When's the last time you heard of the Religious Left?
*************************************************


And in terms of anti-war sentiment, to dismiss the religious organization that are well known to support liberal causes like the Quakers as 'Who ever heard of..." seems to be missing a very large point.

[Furious]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
jj, I am tired of trying to undo the quote muckups you make, so I'll just reply without them.

I did not like the Patriot Act from the moment it passed. And I was as caught up in anger over 9/11 as anyone. But Bush didn't write the Patriot Act, and the vast majority of Congress, including Kerry, voted for it with zeal. They lined up to get in the glow of the spotlight. No one has protested, quoted from, dissected, and analyzed the Patriot Act on here more than I. And I have tried to make everyone here and on SC aware of the fact that not all of the Patriot Act sunsets next year. A good deal of it is permanent and must be actively repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court. And that is going to take a decade or more.

The chances are also very good that those parts of the Act which expire next year will be extended no matter who we the people elect next month. Especially if there is another terrorist attack.

Some people call me crazy or making a slippery slope argument when I say that the Patriot Act will eventually be used outside its original intent, just as the RICO Act now is being used by the Bush Administration to go after cigarette manufacturers.

(edited to add: And I would just like to repeat my belief that the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security and a new National Intelligence Director is also very stupid. Just what we need, more layers of bureacracy! As if that is what we were lacking to prevent 9/11. )

As for spending, I've exhausted myself talking about that with Sundog on SC. I will summarize by saying that yes, Bush is spending money like a sailor in a whorehouse, but I believe Kerry will spend money like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse. But I also believe the solution to paying for it is not raising taxes. The solution is to lower taxes and stimulate the economy. This will actually increase revenue to the government. (edited to add: And of course we must cut spending.)

I make no bones about the fact that this election is a lesser of two evils choice for me. I think it is for the majority of people who will be voting this year. And maybe that is why this cycle has been above average in ugliness. Because when your candidate sucks so bad as to be practically indefensible, it is easier to attack the other guy's candidate. I don't like it, but that's the reality.

Well put and I agree on virtually every point except for the final outcome of voting for Bush. You are making the assumption Kerry will actually get most of his policies passed.

A more nuanced approach to cut down on government spending would be to vote for Kerry. Congress is not likely to go Democratic, and if Kerry gets elected, will not in two years either. With a stalemate between two branches of government, only the most moderate of spending bills will get passed. True, it won't have a great effect on reducing current government, but it is not going to continue growing down the Bush path either.

Republicans have had four years at the controls, so their fiscally conservative mantra is nothing but hot air at this point.