Bashing republican\democrats thread

[madanthonywayne]

You know, Hitler was a national socialist. You guys are always all over the nationalism but don't seem to have any problem with the socialist part. He was also a vegetarian. Better watch out for those guys. Just because someone shares some attribute or group of attributes with Hitler does not make them a NAZI. The attributes I look for in a NAZI are:

1. Wants to exterminate an entire race of people
2. Intent on World Dominion.
3. Insane

 

[hypewaders]

madanthonywayne, I know you can do better than that: You know Gravity was comparing the Bush Administration to known fascist regimes, not only to Nazis. Yet you "refuted" something that was not posited (Bush=Nazi).

In a most superficial way, you inferred that Hitler was a socialist. Surely you understand that the 3rd Reich was not a socialist government by any stretch, and that the National Socialist Workers' Party did not, in spite of labels advance socialism- instead it served totalitarianism.

Fascism has tended to "sneak up" on self-centered countries, and surprise and dismay (whether feigned or sincere) accompanied the emergence of mainstream fascism. Comparisons such as these are perhaps better described as warnings about protofascism. These are not uncommon today, because trends directly comparable to prior outbreaks of fascism are clearly apparent. The Bush Administration has been pandering to the very same public sentiments that were exploited in protofascist Germany, Italy, and Spain. If you wish to refute warnings that the Bush Administration is protofascist, then you would do better to refute the historical parallels offered specifically, and not just in reference to superficial labels.

 

[DeeCee]

The attributes I look for in a NAZI are:

1. Wants to exterminate an entire race of people

Muslims? Algonquin?

2. Intent on World Dominion.

McDonalds? Coca-Cola? USMC?

3. Insane

GW anybody?


Dee Cee

 

[madanthonywayne]

HW
That was just an off the cuff reaction to constant "Repuplicans are fascists" chants on this board. Frankly, if the US goes fascist, I don't think it will be a gradual rightward shift but a sudden overcorrection to the steady leftward drift. While Republicans win a lot of elections, the nation is gradually moving further and further to the left. All the Republicans seem to do is, perhaps, slow it down. For example:

In 1980, when the Republicans won the presidency and the Senate for only the second time in 50 years, the liberal-vs.-conservative score wasn't 0-0. The bluster of nearly every conservative talk-show host, however, is designed to distract their listeners from one overriding point: No matter who wins the presidency this year, the last century went to liberals -- and there's no going back. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0222-05.htm

Every time a new entitlement is created it's forever. This is because the benefits are concentrated while the harm is diffuse. Any given government program can seem reasonable when compared to the size of the entire budget or to some more ridiculous program. Therefore, the Welfare State will continue to expand. Also, government regulation of business will increase for much the same reason. Any regulation or law can be passed if it's "for the children" Environmental regulations, for example, "benefit" everyone while imposing a cost primarily on "evil" businessmen or corporations. Add to this the influence of activist judges and trial lawyers and we will eventually reach the point where it's damn near impossible to do business. This is when we will have our true "swing to the right". Corporations will be forced, by the left, to become what the left has always accused them of being all along: The backers and puppet masters for a fascist government. So the true anti fascist is the conservative because by maintaining a government friendly to business we avoid the chaos from which a true fascist state would spring. The fascist takeover in Germany, remember, was preceeded by the liberal Weimar Republic.

 

[hypewaders]

you're just saying don't rock the boat, don't swing the pendulum, when it is patently (npi) obvious that already now, corporate interests hold more sway than democracy, and enjoy more rights and privileges than individuals in the USA (which is anathema to the founding principles of our nation). To campaign as a "conservative" for business interests in these times, is to patently serve fascist tendencies that are all too apparent now. There is nothing conservative about a cabal that runs up horrendous deficits while writing blank checks to petroleum and defense conglomerates who have been demonstrating gross profiteering and negligence. Please study the history of fascism, and reconcile it's relationship with big business- defend corporate and federal power as a means of staving off some rebound from liberalism that has yet to manifest itself in America. You can rabble-rouse for a Fuhrer with all his corporate backing as a means of avoiding a backlash towards a Fuhrer with all his backing, but you won't convince me. The Bush administration exhibits all the precursors to fascism that have ever been shown in the past, and you are as they say, either with them or against them.

I stand against, fearless that my efforts will rebound to the opposite. This is true for anything worth seeking. If you think that opposing forces, or inertia obviate action in any pursuit, you will be ineffective. You won't even get laid.

 

[dixonmassey]

You know, Hitler was a national socialist. You guys are always all over the nationalism but don't seem to have any problem with the socialist part. He was also a vegetarian. Better watch out for those guys. Just because someone shares some attribute or group of attributes with Hitler does not make them a NAZI. The attributes I look for in a NAZI are:

1. Wants to exterminate an entire race of people
2. Intent on World Dominion.
3. Insane

Hitler was a right wing politician (becides being nazi). Hitler hated passionately communists/socialists/USSR. Hitler cleansed Germany from communists/socialists first thing after taking power.


I really do not believe you are that naive to accept self-name of the ruling party for its face value. Actions matter, self-name of the ruling party is meaningless alone. China is not building communism these days, is it? Even thought the name of the ruling party is the same as 30 years ago.


National Socialism was similar in many respects to Italian fascism (see Fascism). The roots of National Socialism, however, were peculiarly German, grounded, for example, in the Prussian tradition of military authoritarianism and expansion; in the German romantic tradition of hostility to rationalism, liberalism, and democracy; in various racist doctrines according to which the Nordic peoples, as so-called pure Aryans, were not only physically superior to other races, but were the carriers of a superior morality and culture; and in certain philosophical traditions that idealized the state or exalted the superior individual and exempted such a person from conventional restraints.

The theorists and planners of National Socialism included General Karl Ernst Haushofer, a German geographer who exercised much influence in German foreign affairs. The German editor and party leader Alfred Rosenberg formulated Nazi racial theories on the basis of the work of the Anglo-German writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain. To the German financier Hjalmar Schacht fell the task of formulating and carrying out much economic and banking policy, and the German architect and party leader Albert Speer was a major figure in overseeing the economy just before the end of World War II (1939-1945).

 

[madanthonywayne]

You can rabble-rouse for a Fuhrer with all his corporate backing as a means of avoiding a backlash towards a Fuhrer with all his backing, but you won't convince me.

I don't want any Fuhrer and I'm certainly not rabble-rousing for one. I do not believe that inaction to avoid equal and opposite reactions is the best course. We seem to be in a position where the left and the right are increasing the power of the government to further their, theoretically, opposing goals. Now the rich and powerful in ANY society are going to see to it that their interests are served regardless of the system of government. (a quote from Evita comes to mind, but I don't think it would help my arguement given the context) The best we can do is to limit the power of government so that those in postions of power can't do too much damage. This was the fundamental insight of the founding fathers. They endeavered to play interest against interest so that the common good could be served. Democrats always believe that the government can solve any problem when, in fact, government is often the cause of the problems. Each new entitlement, each new government program increases the power of government and therefore increases the potential for corruption and, ultimately, tyranny. Power corrupts. Whether that power is wielded in the name of the people, the proletariat, or the Fuhrer is irrelevent. I admit I don't love GWB. I don't like the deficit. I don't like the increased spending. I don't like the expansion of medicare when that program is already going to break the bank in a few years. Still, compared to Kerry, no contest.

 

[MacM]

I don't want any Fuhrer and I'm certainly not rabble-rousing for one. I do not believe that inaction to avoid equal and opposite reactions is the best course. We seem to be in a position where the left and the right are increasing the power of the government to further their, theoretically, opposing goals. Now the rich and powerful in ANY society are going to see to it that their interests are served regardless of the system of government. (a quote from Evita comes to mind, but I don't think it would help my arguement given the context) The best we can do is to limit the power of government so that those in postions of power can't do too much damage. This was the fundamental insight of the founding fathers. They endeavered to play interest against interest so that the common good could be served. Democrats always believe that the government can solve any problem when, in fact, government is often the cause of the problems. Each new entitlement, each new government program increases the power of government and therefore increases the potential for corruption and, ultimately, tyranny. Power corrupts. Whether that power is wielded in the name of the people, the proletariat, or the Fuhrer is irrelevent. I admit I don't love GWB. I don't like the deficit. I don't like the increased spending. I don't like the expansion of medicare when that program is already going to break the bank in a few years. Still, compared to Kerry, no contest.

I agree with much of your comments but disagree with your ultimate conclusion.

I find it far more dangerous to our liberty, long term, to not vote for Kerry and perhaps take a few more hits before we really get pissed off and slam dunk these piss ants than it is to have a right wing religious zealot in office that wants to amend our constitution along the lines of his religious beliefs and to load our Supreme Court and political process so as to perpetuate the Bible thumpers agenda.

Please don't misjudge my comments. I very much oppose same sex marriage, etc. But amending the constitution is not the way to go.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I find it far more dangerous to our liberty, long term, to not vote for Kerry and perhaps take a few more hits before we really get pissed off and slam dunk these piss ants than it is to have a right wing religious zealot in office that wants to amend our constitution along the lines of his religious beliefs

I said it before and I'll say it again. The constitution is not going to be ammended. The procedure is too difficult. See the quote below taken from http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html:

In every session of Congress, hundreds of constitutional amendments are proposed. Almost never do any of them become actual Amendments. In fact, almost never do any of them even get out of committee.

According to a study by C-SPAN, this is a count of the number of amendments proposed in each of the sessions of Congress in the 1990's:

106th (1999 only): 60
105th (1997-98): 103
104th (1995-96): 158
103rd (1993-94): 156
102nd (1991-92): 165
101st (1989-90): 214

To me the most important issue is national defense. I don't trust Kerry on this issue. To quote Zell Miller:

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

or better yet:

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

That pretty much says it all.

 

[Tiassa]

Zell Miller is a stain on Georgia's name

The gist of the message from the Democrat and/or Republican was: vote for John Kerry and America will be attacked. And when it’s attacked, it’ll be defended with “spitballs.”

So Chris asked him if he really meant that.

“It’s a metaphor,” Miller replied. “Do you know what a metaphor is?”

Umm, Senator? That’s why he asked. Did you really mean that metaphor? Wasn’t that metaphor over-the-top? Isn’t it predicated on a half-idea: that John Kerry tried to dismantle weapons programs (the ones Defense Secretary Dick Cheney had asked the Senate to dismantle)?

Source: MSNBC

With thanks to Pangloss for remindng me of the MSNBC blog in the first place.

As to the Zell Miller speech, it stuns me that while I find Olbermann's Countdown ridiculous fluff that doesn't belong on a network asserting to be a cable news outlet, Keith has indeed pointed out the obvious that gets overlooked in American politics.

The conservative method is to rely on the ignorance and memory (lack) of the audience.

• Think of the Swift Boat controversy. Conservatives like Bob Dole are coming forward and criticizing John Kerry for making his war service part of the debate in the first place. True, true, I suppose, but wasn't there some controversy back around the time of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" fiasco that had to do with inflation's of Bush's service record? The American people have made an issue of war service since '92, at least, when Bill Clinton was blasted as a draft-dodger. It is the GOP that consistently brings the issue to the fore; to claim John Kerry unwise for raising the issue of his war service is myopic if you're a liberal and disingenuous if you're a conservative.

Similarly, as Olbermann points out, Zell Miller in his crossover speech played to the audience by relying on half-truths and hoping nobody would call him on the misrepresentations.

Zell Miller wants to duel Chris Matthews? Zell Miller is a dishonest man. He should not claim to represent anything, as his representation is a stain on any good name. He's lucky we're not in a dueling society, or else Democrats would be hunting him down with white gloves, and while he might get a couple, he won't get enough of them to change the outcome.
____________________

• Olbermann, Keith. "Ask not at whom the Zell boils, he boils at thee." MSNBC, September 2, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5886749/?#040902z

 

[MacM]

I said it before and I'll say it again. The constitution is not going to be ammended.

I would very much agree that it will not be ammended but that doesn't excuse the audacity of some draft dodging prick trying to cram his religion down my throat.

I'll fight the damn terrorists, hand to hand myself, if necessary but keep the religious bastard out of my life and control of my country.

1 - He wants to ammend the constitution on religious grounds.

2 - He Pushes Faith based charities.

3 - He pushed public funds to support religious private schools. (Those are my tax dollars being used to provide religious indoctrination of youth.) I oppose all religions. Don't forceably take my money and then in violation of the Constitution of this country provide support via government (my money) funding religious schools damnit.

4 - He pushes for prayer in school. (I didn't want to see my children, nor do I want to see my grandchildren and great grandchildren brainwashed with this garbage. It is far more dangerous than a few piss ant terroists that killed 3,000 of our citizens.

We are talking of millions of our youth being indoctrinated and made inept to think for themselves and to believe in voodo. It is absolute bullshit and cannot be allowed to continue. Terrorisim is not the primary threat to this country, it is the stupidity of religion and religious zealots forcing there beliefs on others.)

5 - He pushes for over turning Rowe vs Wade (I don't like abortion either but not for religious reasons) and I accept, even if I don't like it, limited abortion.

6 - He has interferred and stopped medical research (stem cell) based on nothing more than his personal religious beliefs.

There is more but I hope you get the point.

I vote Kerry because recovering from a bad military decision is far less disasterous than trying to recover from being over run by seeing "Creationism" taught in our schools as science and fact.

Burn the fucking Bibles and Koran. Leave the Constitution alone and keep your church the hell out of government.

 

[Gravity]

Nice MacM - I'm with you 100% on that, history teaches that when mystical beliefs have gotten a government stamp of approval, its often ended in blood and tears. What these sheep don't understand is that besides protecting those of no or a different religion, seperation of church and state also PROTECTS THE CHURCH too. Otherwise what inevitably happens is that a tighter and tighter definition evolves of what the "right'' religion is.

Like the Emo Philips joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

 

[MacM]

Thanks. It is rare these days to find agreement with my views but I am used to it. LOL. That was funny and unfortunately so very true.

 

[spidergoat]

“ Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief. ”

Soooo, the democratic process actually makes us weaker? I don't see anyone pushing for impeachment, so your idea of bringing down our commander in chief is what...valid criticism? It's an election! Why is Bush cutting veteran's benefits? Why did Bush cut hazardous duty pay? It is not manic to point out that we invaded the wrong country for false reasons, thus causing the death of over 1000 American soldiers and over 10,000 of those we are supposed to be liberating. But, Bush obviously never learned the lessons of Vietnam.

Cheney also opposed many of those weapons systems, but as we should know by now, bills contain many things that might not be good legislation. The implication seems to be that all weapons systems should be funded to the contractor's heart's content? We don't we just sign our paychecks over to the LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION??? Why go to the trouble of having a senate at all? I'm sure Bush would agree...

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2001

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel...

What's so great about the Patriot missile, when it almost completely failed to do what it was supposed to do?

Independent review of the Army’s reveals that, using the Army's own methodology, a strong case can be made that Patriots hit only 9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged, and there are serious questions about these few hits. It is possible that the Patriots hit more than 9 percent, but the evidence showing additional intercepts is much weaker. Source

The patriot missile system has some serious flaws, if a bulletproof vest could only protect you 9% of the time, I would consider it useless. That's just one example. These advanced weapon systems are also mostly useless in the kind of wars we will have to fight in the future, especially against terrorism. As far as I know, none of our high-tech weapons systems won the cold war, with the exception of nuclear missiles, and we have too many of those already.

 

[Undecided]

GWB at the convention how does the economist see it?

Unsurprisingly, the nasty fiscal situation that Mr Bush would face in a second term went unmentioned, though it loomed over his speech like a ghost at the banquet. Big deficits—caused by a combination of an economic downturn and Mr Bush’s tax cuts—are expected to last at least ten years. The cost of switching to Mr Bush’s Social Security plan is estimated at about $1 trillion. He cannot push this plan, extend his tax cuts and follow through with other new domestic programmes announced on Thursday (including more spending on housing and higher education) without plunging the budget further into the red. He described Mr Kerry as a “tax-and-spend” type, but his plans seem to show him as a “cut-taxes-and-spend” type, not obviously a superior breed.
------------------------------------
While he defended his assertiveness, however, Mr Bush offered no new plans in foreign policy.He had nothing to say about reform of the intelligence services. Iran and North Korea did not figure either. Nor, unsurprisingly, did the still-at-large Osama bin Laden. With nearly 140,000 American troops tied down in Iraq, there is simply little room for new threats against America’s enemies. Mr Bush’s speech was more a plea to trust him for what he has done in the past than a signal of what he hopes to do in the future.
----------------------------------
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3168816

The question I really want answered (but can only be answered on Nov.2) is why the hell would a non-ideological person vote for this man? He complains about Kerry “raising taxes” but that’s what’s going to happen eventually because of this RETARDED tax cuts that have put the US in the red to the tune of $450 billion. Since when Mr.Bush does cutting taxes and raising spending make sense? He takes the worst of worlds, Keynesian and capitalist and puts them into one into a combo of disastrous proportions. Anyways Kerry said he would only raise taxes for the top 2 percentile in the US, and here on sci you have proletariats complaining, what is wrong with society? If Bush is re-elected on Nov.2 the economic fortune of the US will no longer be by the end. His economic policies simply do not make any sense. Secondly on foreign policy he says he is going to get those terrorists wherever they are. Not with this military you aren’t. You aren’t going to be invading any time soon, and Iraq will fester like a tumor for a while. Are Americans this gullible?

 

[madanthonywayne]

I vote Kerry because recovering from a bad military decision is far less disasterous than trying to recover from being over run by seeing "Creationism" taught in our schools as science and fact.

Burn the fucking Bibles and Koran. Leave the Constitution alone and keep your church the hell out of government.

Damn. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe religion to be a good influence in most people's lives. So long as your not a Taliban type fanatic or living in Guyana drinking cool aide. Sure much evil has been done in the name of religion. But don't forget there have been plenty of atheist fanatics (Stalin, Mao, Lenin) who did plenty of harm without inspiration from any holy book. Evil men can twist any system of belief to justify their actions.

 

[MacM]

Damn. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe religion to be a good influence in most people's lives. So long as your not a Taliban type fanatic or living in Guyana drinking cool aide. Sure much evil has been done in the name of religion. But don't forget there have been plenty of atheist fanatics (Stalin, Mao, Lenin) who did plenty of harm without inspiration from any holy book. Evil men can twist any system of belief to justify their actions.

We can agree on this view. Evil comes in many disguises but my main objection to religion is the tendancy to stagnate free thought and scientific progress and to advocate such voodo nonesense as being even half way acceptable scientifically and to claim such absolute truth. There can only be one (1) truth, not several hundred competing religions.

 

[nbachris2788]

I said it before and I'll say it again. The constitution is not going to be ammended. The procedure is too difficult. See the quote below taken from http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html:

In every session of Congress, hundreds of constitutional amendments are proposed. Almost never do any of them become actual Amendments. In fact, almost never do any of them even get out of committee.

According to a study by C-SPAN, this is a count of the number of amendments proposed in each of the sessions of Congress in the 1990's:

106th (1999 only): 60
105th (1997-98): 103
104th (1995-96): 158
103rd (1993-94): 156
102nd (1991-92): 165
101st (1989-90): 214

To me the most important issue is national defense. I don't trust Kerry on this issue. To quote Zell Miller:



or better yet:

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

That pretty much says it all.

Kerry never voted against all those weapons individually. It was part of a mass bill that made sense at the time because the Cold War ended and the country was having massive budget problems. A Republican named Richard Cheney thought that those cuts weren't enough and demanded more. Go after him.

Kerry voted against the REVISED 87 billion dollar package because earlier, he voted for a similar aid package that would've been paid by repealing some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Bush and his Repugs turned it down, and instead came up with their own bright solution of plunging the country further into deficits while putting 20 billion dollars of that money in the hands of that trustworthy and honest company known as Halliburton.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

The Madness Of Emperor George

Is Bush cookoo? or just a war-mad dog?
http://www.freedomunderground.org/newsite/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=8918

The Madness Of Emperor George
lewrockwell.com | 4 Sep 2005 | Butler Shaffer
While campaigning for reelection, President Bush declared: "Knowing what we know today, we still would have gone into Iraq." That Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction nor ongoing efforts to create them, no Iraqi ties to al Qaeda or involvement with the attacks of 9/11 were, by Bush’s own admission, irrelevant to his plans to attack an innocent nation. Truth, in other words, has no meaning in this man’s calculation of his actions. Mr. Bush went even further in declaring, on the one hand, "I don’t think you can win" the war on terror, but adding that America cannot retreat from this war because, to do so, would "show weakness" to the world.

Most Americans are probably uncomfortable with the thought that their president might suffer from madness. The mere contemplation of such a possibility simply does not compute within minds that have been conditioned to believe in the rationality of the political process which is supposed to filter out the unstable, the crazed fanatics, and those of "extremist" dispositions. How could a man become and remain president if his thinking and actions were dominated by irrational impulses?

 

[hypewaders]

I don't think madness is accurate. GWB is in way over his head when it comes to foreign policy (among other things). This is why he cannot make unscripted, astute, and insightful comments about such issues. That said, in extreme crisis and in the absence of sound advice, it is possible that frustration could lead GWB to make highly irrational and tragic decisions.