Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

Larry434 wrote:

That reversion to type was not Kerry's finest moment in the debate.

Ok, good point. That's one side of a debate, on an issue that can and should be discussed. The problem seems to be that the Bush campaign has no intention of engaging in that debate and instead is resorting to ridicule. If one of the purposes of a presidential campaign, is the public airing of the issues of the day, by the major figures involved in the decision making, we are not getting it at the moment.

timberlandko wrote:

Hold that thought dearly, kicky ... its sure to be of comfort to you in November, as The Democrats once again try to figure out how it all could have gone so horribly wrong.

It's never been a mystery to me. The average American is an unspeakable ignoramus. That is the biggest problem facing liberalism.

IronLionZion wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Hold that thought dearly, kicky ... its sure to be of comfort to you in November, as The Democrats once again try to figure out how it all could have gone so horribly wrong.

It's never been a mystery to me. The average American is an unspeakable ignoramus. That is the biggest problem facing liberalism.

First of all, I'm not a liberal. I don't even think that word has any meaning, to tell you the truth. It's become just a convenient label that gets put on anyone who doesn't follow lock-step behind the idiocy of Bush.

I just enjoyed seeing the incompetent--er, I mean incumbent president getting shown to be the mouth-breather that he is. And yes, I will hold that image dearly, because I am not under any illusions that Kerry will win.

I am not going to try and write under your points as I find it aggrivating.

I find it easier and so shall continue to do so for ease, not to aggravate you.

So I will just number them.

1. The point about it not making any difference in North Korea and how we go about it was that foxfrye made out like Clinton's way didn't work. I merely pointed out that Bush's way didn't either. That guy from North Korea said once that the only North Korea would stop developing Nukes (easier to spell) was for the leader of North Korea to die.

First of all, Bush's way has only really begun, and while it may be true that no progress has been made, it would be foolish to leak developments while negotiations are ongoing. A result has not been claimed or announced.

Secondly, Clinton's way did involve an announced result. Negotiations weren't in progress when he left office, they had been concluded and a proported solution arrived at. That solution failed.

Clinton's way did not work. Bush's way has not reached an end point yet.

My point on this issue is that it is inconsistent for people to expect Bush's way to have born fruit in such a relatively short period of time when they were all in favor of giving the UN approach to Iraq more than 11 years to work.

2. About Israel being evil, I imagine that is in the eye of the beholder.

Not really. Human society has developed a fairly tight consensus on what falls under the heading of Evil.

Simply because someone might see you or I as evil, doesn't make it so, and if that person's characterization of us is not born out by facts, it will generate no support within broader society. Thus, netiher in the abstract nor concrete will our evil be identified by the eye of that particular beholder.

Of course when we speak of Saddam's Iraq, Iran, NK or Israel being Evil, we really mean their governments. In the case of the first three, we have governments that rule through tyranny, oppress and abuse their citizens, which seek WMD for aggressive purposes (which would include nuclear blackmail) and to preserve their power, and which seek to cause or support mayhem and destruction in other parts of the world.

Israel, by comparison, is a democracy. It has developed nukes for purely defensive purposes, even going so far as never actually announcing that it has them. Say what you want about Israel, but they have not left footprints in and around terrorist attacks throughout the world, and there is virtually no chance that they might sell weapons of any sort to terrorists.

Israel's government is far from perfect, but then none are. In the defense of it's people and its nation against a complex and insidious threat, it may or may not have crossed the line on occassion. However, is there really any reason to believe that if Israel found wlecome in the region tomorrow, and without lunatics blowing up innocent Israelis, that it would not very quickly become a good neighbor indeed? Hopefully the same can now be said about Iraq, because the source of its Evil has been removed. Since Inranians and North Koreans are not inherently evil people, the same can be said of those countries if their dictatorships are ever overthrown.

I agree that Saddam Hussien was just sucking up to the Arabs/Muslims with giving the suicide bombers money.

However neither is to the point. The point is this from one of my previous links.

Au contraire. You asked why Bush and Kerry felt the need to talk about Israel in conjunction with Iraq.

Quote:

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty mentions five "Nuclear Weapons States" (NWS), which are allowed under the treaty to possess nuclear weapons. None other among the 188 countries that signed the treaty are allowed to have Nuclear Weapons programs. The five NWS are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the United States, Russia, the People's Republic of China, France, and the United Kingdom. Other countries with nuclear weapons, none of which has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are India, Pakistan and Israel

Israel did not sign the Non Proliferation Treaty so they are not supposed to be able to possess Nuclear weapons. They have broke just as many UN agreement as any other "evil" nation. Yet somehow they are exempt from any censure or name calling from the US.

Your statement is incorrect. Since they did not sign the treaty, they are not bound by its terms. Violating UN resolutions is not, in an of itself, a sign of evil intent, particularly so when Israel has repeated been an unfair target of such resolutions. If you want to know about the moral authority of the UN you need only ask yourself how Sudan, during what so many have described as a program of genocide, can have been reelected to the UN Humans Rights Commission?

3. I wonder just how is Israel our ally? What have they done for us that is so special that we have to treat them so special? So they are in the middle east, some would argue that is the whole problem. Israel has launched missles at Palestine and other parts of the world yet we are not going to war with them.

They have provide us with vast amounts of valuable intelligence, I suspect that they may have carried out covert missions on our behalf, but have no proof of same, they allowed Iraq to rain Scuds on their cities without retaliating because we asked them not to, they are a Democracy with values that align with our own. Their people didn't dance in the streets on 9/11.They have not been the perfect ally to us anymore than we have been the perfect ally to them. They have, however, been a far more valuable ally in the region than any other country with which we might use that term.


4. you guys must be worried if you feel you got to encourage every democrat not to vote. Kind of unpatriotic.

Whatever, just stick to your original inclination and don't vote.

What I was expressing was my growing tiredness of the poltical game. It is fast getting old.

It is, and so again I encourage you to get out of it and not vote.

5. I know I can't spell and I my grammar sort of blast the myth about liberal democrats being elistist. But I would like to write something and get it published before I die.

No, it argues against the claim of Liberals that they are elite. They remain elitists.

I hope you do write your novel. Good luck with it. I simply suggested that you need to start it before asking about an editor, or a cover artist for that matter.

kickycan wrote:

IronLionZion wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Hold that thought dearly, kicky ... its sure to be of comfort to you in November, as The Democrats once again try to figure out how it all could have gone so horribly wrong.

It's never been a mystery to me. The average American is an unspeakable ignoramus. That is the biggest problem facing liberalism.

First of all, I'm not a liberal. I don't even think that word has any meaning, to tell you the truth. It's become just a convenient label that gets put on anyone who doesn't follow lock-step behind the idiocy of Bush.

I just enjoyed seeing the incompetent--er, I mean incumbent president getting shown to be the mouth-breather that he is. And yes, I will hold that image dearly, because I am not under any illusions that Kerry will win.

Kerry IS GOING TO WIN!

Perhaps it's not only mental acuity, but long memories. Perhaps the fact that Kerry is saying now what he said 30 years ago is resonating. Perhaps people didn't buy it then and don't buy it now.

I don't mind criticism of any administration as long as it's not just thrown out there out of context and as long as it has factual evidence to back it up.

The fact is the economy is improving, jobs are being created, funding for education has been increased, people have more money due to lower taxes...the list goes on. All of this in the face of rebuilding after 9/11/01 and dealing with the Clinton recession.

The people in this country of whom Panzade speaks have the mental acuity to know it has been a daunting task, but tihs administration's policies are working.

It's no secret that I'm for a strong military, and although I hate war, I cannot condone the "grand diversion" comment of Kerry's while we have even one soldier serving. I know I will never be able to repay that soldier for what he has given in time, duty and sacrifice, but unlike the "politician", that soldier will have my full support.

On another Fox-related topic...I watched Hannity and Colmes tonight. It was so nice to see that look of desperation in Hannity's eyes as he tried in vain to put a positive spin on last night's debate. Oh man, that was some seriously good entertainment. I heard him sounding a little bit more meek and mild today on his radio show too. I relish his pain.

I was a toddler thirty years ago. I probably would have been a Bush fan. << Kickycan

But you went to school at some point and learned to read, right? So you know that Kerry has always said he thinks the disbursement of our military should be at the discretion of the U.N., right?

And you agree, right?

But you went to school at some point and learned to read, right? So you know that Kerry has always said he thinks the disbursement of our military should be at the discretion of the U.N., right?

And you agree, right?

I was a toddler thirty years ago. I probably would have been a Bush fan. << Kickycan

But you went to school at some point and learned to read, right? So you know that Kerry has always said he thinks the disbursement of our military should be at the discretion of the U.N., right?

And you agree, right?

kuvasz wrote:

Re: North Korean negotiations. One would have to be mentally retarded to want the US to engage the NK's in other than direct bilateral negotiations, especially when the alternative allows the Red Chinese to poke their noses under the tent and attempt to fashion any US/NK agreement to their own purposes and to the potential detriment of US national security.

Well, that would make me mentally retarded than wouldn't it? <shakes head> You still haven't figured out how Carter poked his nose in and created this mess, have you? Nor have you figured out how Clinton went right ahead and agreed to pay the terrorists ransom in exchange for a BS policy that totally failed. Now you are suggesting one must be mentally retarded to not wish to resume it. Get a grip. Or at least familiarize yourself with the results of the idiotic agreement you defend.

kuvasz wrote:

Unless of course, one disagrees with the words last night of our beloved C-plus Augustus that other nations should have no say so in what the US deems is appropriate for its security, or perhaps wants the US beholden to the Red Chinese for their quite willing and cheerful assistance in dealing with the NKs.

What makes you think those are the only two scenarios? Btw, do you believe in this unilateral approach to everything?

kuvasz wrote:

Even George Bush, as stupid as he is, and he is quite stupid, is not so stupid to want to owe the Red Chinese for helping the US with NK when it is unnecessary and places into the hands of the Red Chinese an additional chit they can cash in during future trade and security negotiations with the USA.

I agree with most of this paragraph... and wonder how you could write it despite it being a direct contradiction to the previous two.

kuvasz wrote:

Think again. By having the Red Chinese intercede with NK the US undermines its ability to protect Taiwan and pressure the Red Chinese on fair trade.

More voices have more leverage, Kuvasz, and since a nuclear free Korea is in everyone's best interest it only makes sense to unite against the murderous Kim. This fantasy of yours about owing China is only a possible side effect to Chinese involvement, not an automatic bi-product like you imply. I submit; it is you who needs to "think again".