Bashing republican\democrats thread
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
All kidding aside, I think his most costly "decisions" thus far, such as invading Iraq, were not made by the President, nor were they made in haste. The neoconservatives had wanted Iraq for some time, and the Saudi eviction notice for US troops, triggering an urgent quest for new garrisons securing oil and Israel, had already occured years before.
We haven't really seen W do anything rashly dangerous yet, like JFK did during the Turkey Missile Crisis. We watched President Bush on live videotape being informed about the ongoing 9-11 attacks, and at that time he obviously did not know how to react. I suspect his frame of mind is different now, and that in a more extreme crisis, and without advisors advising, he could do something very rash.
We haven't really seen W do anything rashly dangerous yet, like JFK did during the Turkey Missile Crisis. We watched President Bush on live videotape being informed about the ongoing 9-11 attacks, and at that time he obviously did not know how to react. I suspect his frame of mind is different now, and that in a more extreme crisis, and without advisors advising, he could do something very rash.
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
ok, Middle-America, while you were out there fighting & dying in Viet Nam, here is what your elites did:
From:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NH... NEWS; Chickenhawks; Chickenhawk Headquarters
Here are the names of those from our 'fearless' leaders' hometowns, that did not have 'other priorities', or a rich daddy to help them out:
(Please see link for names.) From:
http://www.dennismansker.com/casualtylists.htm
That's why they are so mad at Kerry's record in Viet Nam, because Kerry was one of the few of the elites from that era, that served, where are George's & Dick's military service metals?
From:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NH... NEWS; Chickenhawks; Chickenhawk Headquarters
Here are the names of those from our 'fearless' leaders' hometowns, that did not have 'other priorities', or a rich daddy to help them out:
(Please see link for names.) From:
http://www.dennismansker.com/casualtylists.htm
That's why they are so mad at Kerry's record in Viet Nam, because Kerry was one of the few of the elites from that era, that served, where are George's & Dick's military service metals?
nbachris2788
Registered Senior Member
Great points Randolfo. It's simply astounding to me how many people are willing to forgive and forget Bush and Cheney's cowardice thirty years ago. If they were conscientious objectors, then that was okay because they at least believed something. But seeing them as the hawkish right wing nut jobs they have become, my educated guess would be that they thought Nam was the right thing to do, but not right enough for them to risk their lives. Instead, they sent the poor, the minorities, and sucker patriots like John Kerry to die for them. And should they ever have to face the past in a presidential election thirty years later, they can dupe the public into thinking they, the draft dodgers, are stronger men in war than a man like John Kerry because they are Republican and conservative (aka manly and strong), while their opponent is Democratic and liberal (aka Frenchy and wussy). There seriously needs to be an educational overhaul in America. It's not a natural deficiency in understanding or rationale. I think it's the complacent and subtle arrogance that stems from being such a world power. Therefore, the critics of America, who are usually well-educated, are seen as enemies, and the population retreats into an anti-intellectual shell where the loudest and most brazen leader is the strongest, and a thoughtful and intelligent one is weak and unAmerican. Of course, this is not true for all of America. Northeastern and west coast America are free from this illness, as are some other states.
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
The problem many veterans have with Kerry, is that he spoke out against the war. Listen, this is the US, you are allowed to do that. He volunteered for service, saw the error of his ways, came back to change that. That's what should have happened. Listen, we shouldn't have so many hard feelings over a war that ended 30 years ago, but we really haven't finished it. We lost, because the people running it failed us, we have millions of damaged, hurt veterans because of that; drugs, homelessness, PTS syndrome, etc.... We did our best in a hopeless situation, but the VC had a 1000 years of guerrilla training against the Chinese, they even beat them in 1979. We thought we could beat them with bombs & superior firepower, but if you don't have the will, determination & strategy, you lose.nbachris2788 said:
Iraq will be the same, if we cut & run, Islamic warriors will know that we can be beaten, then they'll be after us, till the death. Hey, we showed the world that superpowers could be beaten; North Viet Nam (with CCCP & Red Chinese help) vs. the US, CCCP vs. Afghanistan (with US help).
I'm what's considered a Viet Nam-era veteran, joined the USAF in 1973, after we had pulled out & started "Vietnamization" full force. Viet Nam fell in '75, followed by Cambodia & Laos. The 'domino theory' was right, but we fought that war wrong, just like today, we are letting 'politicos' run the show, Bush may think he's doing the best, but he just ignited a 'hundred years' war, because instead of going after al-Queda like he should have, he got diverted into Iraq. Going after al-Queda, anyone can understand, but Iraq? Listen, if there where any WMD's there & Saddam had shipped them to Syria, wouldn't our spy satellites have seen all that movement? Or are we deaf, dumb & blind too?
The 'die has been cast', Kerry or Bush have no choice, but to fight in Iraq until we win, or we'll run from them like dogs, & muslims hate dogs.
nbachris2788
Registered Senior Member
It's so telling of some people's hard-headedsness that they'd rather have a chickenhawk draft dodger who may share their views on Vietnam instead of a battle-hardened Vietnam who rightfully questioned the war.
(Insert Title Here)
This is a question that has been bugging me, largely because of the Swift controversy:
• Is "truth"--e.g. "honesty" or "reflective of historical reality"--a betrayal of American principles?
I don't know what to tell vets about their feelings regarding Kerry, but when I see that Swift Boat ad in which a man named Galanti says--
"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying.* It demoralized us." (SBVT)
--he implies that John Kerry has committed treason by reporting what other vets had told him. Given that history shows such atrocities did occur in the war, it seems that Mr. Gallanti and the veterans he speaks on behalf of consider truth a betrayal of American principle. As Gallanti accuses: in reporting honestly what he'd been told, John Kerry "betrayed" his fellow soldiers, "dishonored his country".
So what I'm wondering is if veterans in general share with the Swift group the sentiment that truth is a betrayal of American principles and therefore America itself?
I mean, pointing out that soldiers are trained killers has gotten me chewed out for my "disrespect" in the past. What of saying truth is not an American principle? What of saying truth is a betrayal of American principle? What of saying truth and honesty are not part of being a good soldier? Or even that they are betrayals of the good soldier?
There is some truth in that statement, Randolfo, and while NBAChris' point may owe more to the political than the historical, 'tis curiously true as well that the casting of the die seems to be unimportant to people--while Kerry or Bush may have no choice because of Bush's "questionable" policies, the public seems willing to hold that fact against Kerry.
Randolfo said:
This is a question that has been bugging me, largely because of the Swift controversy:
• Is "truth"--e.g. "honesty" or "reflective of historical reality"--a betrayal of American principles?
I don't know what to tell vets about their feelings regarding Kerry, but when I see that Swift Boat ad in which a man named Galanti says--
"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying.* It demoralized us." (SBVT)
So what I'm wondering is if veterans in general share with the Swift group the sentiment that truth is a betrayal of American principles and therefore America itself?
I mean, pointing out that soldiers are trained killers has gotten me chewed out for my "disrespect" in the past. What of saying truth is not an American principle? What of saying truth is a betrayal of American principle? What of saying truth and honesty are not part of being a good soldier? Or even that they are betrayals of the good soldier?
There is some truth in that statement, Randolfo, and while NBAChris' point may owe more to the political than the historical, 'tis curiously true as well that the casting of the die seems to be unimportant to people--while Kerry or Bush may have no choice because of Bush's "questionable" policies, the public seems willing to hold that fact against Kerry.
Last edited:
tiassa said:
Good post. I happen to think Kerry should be commended for having the honesty and decancy to have come forward and state that atrocities WERE being committed, becasue they, were. It is debateable however, how mush was misinformation given him and exageration he himself may have generated for his own political purposes.
If he exagerated he should be condemend for that but that frankly is more acceptable than the alternative which the Truth Vetrs " ads imply that is that it was anti-American to have come forward and told some truths. It is they that should be condemend not Kerry.
Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3992-2004Sep7.html
Title: "Don't Duck the Debates"
Date: September 8, 2004
The lead editorial from today's Post raises an interesting point, and even cites Bill Clinton's ducking of a debate in 1996. The Post's logic makes some senses, as it could not possibly have been that Clinton feared Dole in a debate the way the Bush campaign fears anything other than softballing and rehearsed pomp and circumstance.
Though I reiterate that the Democrats would better be served with an Edwards ticket, still 'tis the season to see just how wrong, worked-over, or well-prepared Dubya actually is. If Kerry wants to play dirty, he should just show that Boston charm chide Bush condescendingly every time the President attempts a cheap line and a smirk in lieu of having a point. (In all fairness, Bush could cough and guzzle water every time Kerry gets too dry.)
Of course, the key for Kerry is to then deliver the goods in a reasonably comfortable style. If Kerry goes so far as to put on a two-beer "revealing" dispassion, he could actually freeze Bush. Kerry had best learn, before taking the debating stage, to not worry about prefacing his zingers with so much patient setup. Economy, snap, style. Tack that Dubya to the wall so it stands for Washout.
The key for Bush? To meet the challenges of the debates with firm conviction and unwavering resolve, to neither falter nor fail, and to come up with better answers than he has so far.
Of course, who knows? To judge by our television and radio markets, the American people have a thing for fluff. Maybe cotton-candy will get Bush elected.
____________________
• Editorial. "Don't Duck the Debates". Washington Post, September 8, 2004; page A22. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3992-2004Sep7.html
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3992-2004Sep7.html
Title: "Don't Duck the Debates"
Date: September 8, 2004
The lead editorial from today's Post raises an interesting point, and even cites Bill Clinton's ducking of a debate in 1996. The Post's logic makes some senses, as it could not possibly have been that Clinton feared Dole in a debate the way the Bush campaign fears anything other than softballing and rehearsed pomp and circumstance.
Though I reiterate that the Democrats would better be served with an Edwards ticket, still 'tis the season to see just how wrong, worked-over, or well-prepared Dubya actually is. If Kerry wants to play dirty, he should just show that Boston charm chide Bush condescendingly every time the President attempts a cheap line and a smirk in lieu of having a point. (In all fairness, Bush could cough and guzzle water every time Kerry gets too dry.)
Of course, the key for Kerry is to then deliver the goods in a reasonably comfortable style. If Kerry goes so far as to put on a two-beer "revealing" dispassion, he could actually freeze Bush. Kerry had best learn, before taking the debating stage, to not worry about prefacing his zingers with so much patient setup. Economy, snap, style. Tack that Dubya to the wall so it stands for Washout.
The key for Bush? To meet the challenges of the debates with firm conviction and unwavering resolve, to neither falter nor fail, and to come up with better answers than he has so far.
Of course, who knows? To judge by our television and radio markets, the American people have a thing for fluff. Maybe cotton-candy will get Bush elected.
____________________
• Editorial. "Don't Duck the Debates". Washington Post, September 8, 2004; page A22. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3992-2004Sep7.html
Although Bush supporters are programmed not to care what the remainder of the world thinks, I wonder what their reaction, would be, if they spent a little time pondering why a resounding majority of non-Americans (30 out of 35 nationalities polled)would apparently much prefer for the incumbent President to be defeated:
If the true interests and direction of the United States, as expressed by the Bush 43 Administration, are at odds with the rest of the world, are we not in for a very troubled future? How is it that an effective world leader can be repudiated by the world, yet still be counted by so many at home as a "Mission Accomplished" Captain of State with "the Right Stuff"?
If the true interests and direction of the United States, as expressed by the Bush 43 Administration, are at odds with the rest of the world, are we not in for a very troubled future? How is it that an effective world leader can be repudiated by the world, yet still be counted by so many at home as a "Mission Accomplished" Captain of State with "the Right Stuff"?
I would assume that a good Neo-Con would argue that those people want Kerry in so that they can harm/control/weaken the USA. However - then you would have to ask - why the people of so many countrys, many very staunch allies of America, would want that to happen to us either?
If those are good stats, the bottom line is that we are screwed no matter what unless we radically reform and quickly. No matter how strong we are, USA vs. Rest of the World would end badly for us.
If those are good stats, the bottom line is that we are screwed no matter what unless we radically reform and quickly. No matter how strong we are, USA vs. Rest of the World would end badly for us.
This election does scare us outside the US, because it for us determines how we will be treated by the US. Another four years of Bush will create not scared about another election, they will have very little inhibitions to do what they consider necessary. The big loser in all of this is of course the American people, because it is not their interests which are served by this administration (I am not saying Kerry wouldn’t pander to special interests, or corporate influence) but the type of influence on the Bush camp is significantly worse and has an interest in shutting up rebellious Americans, maximizing profits, and war.
Yep. They'll have nothing to lose if they win/take this election. All remaining environmental laws gutted. Gap between rich and poor will accelerate even more quickly. Patriot Act II and other such things will be put into place and us even talking like this here will likely be considered treason and punishable. We will keep wiping our feet on the rest of the world and terrorism will grow, grow, grow!
Actually you seem to not be informed about the two party system. It is the Republicains that pander to the wealthy and Corporate interest (Bush).
Not exclusively…I recognize that Bush and the corporate industries are MUCH closer then Kerry (industries like Oil, construction, military industrial complex). But the Kerry camp and the democrats in general were the ones who supported free trade etc…to the detriment of their own voting bloc.
Not exclusively…I recognize that Bush and the corporate industries are MUCH closer then Kerry (industries like Oil, construction, military industrial complex). But the Kerry camp and the democrats in general were the ones who supported free trade etc…to the detriment of their own voting bloc.
nbachris2788
Registered Senior Member
A largely ignored but important fact for all potential Kerry voters is that he never took PAC money in his senate races. Of course, the Bush camp spun this truth by saying he took more special interest money than any other senator in recent history. That is true, actually, but a deeper analysis shows that to be much less of a bad thing than it sounds like.
Kerry took about $600 000 in special interest money in his 18 year senate career. Sounds like a lot, right? Wrong. In comparison, PAC money raises at least over a million dollars per senate run for those who choose to partake in it. Kerry's had four senate races, I think. If you divide $600 000 by four, you get $150 000. So basically, Kerry took $150 000 in special interest, or "soft", money in each of his races, while every other senator took over $1 000 000.
Kerry took about $600 000 in special interest money in his 18 year senate career. Sounds like a lot, right? Wrong. In comparison, PAC money raises at least over a million dollars per senate run for those who choose to partake in it. Kerry's had four senate races, I think. If you divide $600 000 by four, you get $150 000. So basically, Kerry took $150 000 in special interest, or "soft", money in each of his races, while every other senator took over $1 000 000.