Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

blatham wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
blatham wrote:
Staying away from talking points is good advice, JW. But you never take it yourself. Your last post constitutes precisely what are precisely the main talking points of the RNC..."Dems have no strategy, no message, no leader". "Hating Bush isn't a policy". "Dems are weak on defence." We see it all repeated regularly by you, by others here, daily on Fox, and hourly on all the main right wing sites.

Since when are the NYTimes and USAToday "talking points" for the GOP?

When the Democrats have a cohesive message or a particularly good choice to demonstrate on national security (besides yelling and snark) I'll be sure to pay attention.

No you won't. Other than to figure out some tact to put it (whatever it is) in a negative light. You're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. The chances of you voting Dem are what? That's fine, so far as it goes, but we might as well be honest about what is up and what is down.

"Talking points" aren't publications, of course. They are simple, easy to grasp bits of narrative which political strategists work very hard at formulating and getting into as many high profile outlets as possible.

I know I come across as dyed-in-the-wool, blatham. I do that partly on purpose (I know you know that) because there are so few conservatives here and even most of those are lukewarm. I'm pretty sure that Foxy and I, however, were separated at birth. She and I think so much alike it's almost scary.

And...like Foxy...I'd turn my back on any party that behaved as shamefully as the Democrats did at Mrs. King's funeral the other day.

And...like Foxy...I don't endorse everything the GOP stands for, but even if I were to bill myself as an independent, I couldn't vote for the Democrats (and many independents don't).

So why don't you tell us what exactly the Democrats see as their defining message on national security. We pretty much know their agenda on domestic policy, but since you seem to be immune to "talking points", I'm sure you could enlighten us all on the Democratic wisdom of foreign policy.

This will be interesting.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

blatham wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
blatham wrote:
Staying away from talking points is good advice, JW. But you never take it yourself. Your last post constitutes precisely what are precisely the main talking points of the RNC..."Dems have no strategy, no message, no leader". "Hating Bush isn't a policy". "Dems are weak on defence." We see it all repeated regularly by you, by others here, daily on Fox, and hourly on all the main right wing sites.

Then please tell me,because I am truly curious...
What is the dems message for the country?
What is their platform?
What are their plans and goals if they regain power?

I have not heard one articulated by any Dem Leader,and I truly am curious.

What REASON is there to vote FOR them.instead of AGAINST the republicans?

Like JW, you don't have any reason to vote Dem. And we both know you won't. You could quite easily find the information you rhetorically seek but it isn't territory you have any interest in investigating.

Oh really,you know what and how I vote?
I dont vote party,I vote ideas.
I have said it before,and I will say it again,just for you...

IF EVAN BAYH,A DEMOCRAT FROM INDIANA,RUNS,I WILL VOTE FOR HIM!!!

Is that plain enough for you?

Yup, that'll do.

0 Replies

Now,answer my question...

What is the dems message for the country?
What is their platform?
What are their plans and goals if they regain power?

0 Replies

Justwonders wrote

Quote:

And...like Foxy...I'd turn my back on any party that behaved as shamefully as the Democrats did at Mrs. King's funeral the other day.

But torture and deceit and stonewalling all instances of oversight and poorly equipping young soldiers are fine. It is something said at a funeral (regardless of its veracity and importance) which determines your support.

Quote:

And...like Foxy...I don't endorse everything the GOP stands for, but even if I were to bill myself as an independent, I couldn't vote for the Democrats (and many independents don't).

Yes. That is understood.

Quote:

So why don't you tell us what exactly the Democrats see as their defining message on national security. We pretty much know their agenda on domestic policy, but since you seem to be immune to "talking points", I'm sure you could enlighten us all on the Democratic wisdom of foreign policy.

Take a month. Quit reading and watching your present sources. I'll provide you with a modest list of things to read each day (good quality). That would help with the "enlighten" thing.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Now,answer my question...

What is the dems message for the country?
What is their platform?
What are their plans and goals if they regain power?

Simple and easy you don't get. Sorry. You can educate yourself on all this, it just takes the decision and the work.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Take a month. Quit reading and watching your present sources. I'll provide you with a modest list of things to read each day (good quality). That would help with the "enlighten" thing.

Ok. But, at the end of that month, I expect to know the Democratic strategy (in detail) for:

(1) Capturing Bin Laden
(2) Defusing the middle east powder keg
(3)Making everybody in the world love America
(4) Putting the moderates in power in Iran. You DO have a plan, don't you???????

Actually, you've proven Goldberg's point exactly. You rarely offer anything but criticism of the current administration. But I'm sure a campaign slogan of "Bush wore a flight suit!" will win the white house for the Dems, just like it did in '04 -- oops sorry, I mean will win the house just like it did,... er I mean the senate...

<Try to include some economic publications in your syllabus - otherwise, it's like a day without sunshine Smile

>

0 Replies

Blatham,

You're making the mistake that either one of them could ever get it. You can keep trying if you like an impossible challenge, but it isn't going to happen. Good luck though!

Anon

0 Replies

JW:

Quote:

1) Capturing Bin Laden
(2) Defusing the middle east powder keg
(3)Making everybody in the world love America
(4) Putting the moderates in power in Iran.

Can we take from your flippant list that the present administration has some clue of how to go about solving these?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

JW:

Quote:
1) Capturing Bin Laden
(2) Defusing the middle east powder keg
(3)Making everybody in the world love America
(4) Putting the moderates in power in Iran.

Can we take from your flippant list that the present administration has some clue of how to go about solving these?

JW forgets in 2000 that we had managed most of that ... before Bush took over!!

Anon

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

blatham wrote:
Take a month. Quit reading and watching your present sources. I'll provide you with a modest list of things to read each day (good quality). That would help with the "enlighten" thing.

Ok. But, at the end of that month, I expect to know the Democratic strategy (in detail) for:

(1) Capturing Bin Laden
(2) Defusing the middle east powder keg
(3)Making everybody in the world love America
(4) Putting the moderates in power in Iran. You DO have a plan, don't you???????

Actually, you've proven Goldberg's point exactly. You rarely offer anything but criticism of the current administration. But I'm sure a campaign slogan of "Bush wore a flight suit!" will win the white house for the Dems, just like it did in '04 -- oops sorry, I mean will win the house just like it did,... er I mean the senate...

<Try to include some economic publications in your syllabus - otherwise, it's like a day without sunshine >

Why do I suspect getting you off of Fox would be like getting dyslexia off of cigarettes? I'm not sure you'd be prudent to go with 1 through 4, for the obvious reasons.

Tell you what, I'm up for a deal if you are. Over the next four weeks, I'll link you with a piece each week to read (probably about a one hour read, and to read carefully is part of this deal). In return, you can forward same to me. I'll set to it with integrity if you can assure me you will as well. All I'll request is that whatever you forward is well thought out and doesn't make a lot of claims for which no evidence is provided. What I send likely won't have anything to do with policy proposals from Democrats (I'm Canadian and I'm not associated with any element of the party, nor am I much of a policy wonk).

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

snood wrote:
JW:

Quote:
1) Capturing Bin Laden
(2) Defusing the middle east powder keg
(3)Making everybody in the world love America
(4) Putting the moderates in power in Iran.

Can we take from your flippant list that the present administration has some clue of how to go about solving these?

JW forgets in 2000 that we had managed most of that ... before Bush took over!!

Anon

We have a winner for the most ridiculous assertion of the week!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico wrote:
Maybe you or Cyclops can explain exactly how the Bush Administration has "pimped" the deaths of the victims? Is this some duty the 9/11 families thinks the Administration owes them individually? The Administration cannot remind the country of the need to be vigilent and remember the events of that day without being accused of "pimping" the deaths of the victims?

The administration uses the dead of 9/11 to forward their political causes. The Republicans in both houses of Congress bring them up all the time. Just the other day, Sessions (I believe) stated that there are '3000 people with no civil rights' because of 9/11, in order to lend support to Bush's illegal wire tapping.

Well Congress hardly counts as the "Bush Administration"? But again, you find the reference to those that died on 9/11 to be an example of a lack of class?

Quote:

I, and I feel many others, are not concerned with what you find appropriate or not.

Then why are you responding on this topic on this thread?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Oh, I suspect the chances of me moving you a zillionth of a micrometer on this issue are about the same as the chances of John Ascroft joining the Rolling Stones on their next concert tour. You're glued down.

Almost as rigidly as you, blatham.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

blatham wrote:
And as to "pimping"...cyclo has that right and you do not. The Bush administration has pimped the deaths of 9/11 thousands of times, literally. And protests from grieving relatives of victims have moved you not at all, apparently.

Yeah well, but theres the difference, Blatham. Then, it was the grieving families of the dead that were offended; this time the family may have been fine, but politicians were offended! Now see, thats a wholly different matter.

You gotta know, its OK to go against the wishes of the berieved families of the dead to make a political point; its making a point thats actually in the spirit of the deceased thats just crass. Thats how you can tell the difference in class between them and us, dont you know.

Oh, and up is down and down is up.

Yes, there's the difference. There, the few families complaining (and what exactly was their complaint?) were trying to make a political point by their complaining. Those deaths occurred, and that's the impetus for the current War on Terror, so their deaths will be referenced, and they only complain because they don't agree with the Bush Administration.

But, yes, I see the difference in class between "you" and "us": You think a funeral is a political rally.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

And...like Foxy...I'd turn my back on any party that behaved as shamefully as the Democrats did at Mrs. King's funeral the other day.

I'd sure as hell chastise it, not try and excuse it.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Take a month. Quit reading and watching your present sources. I'll provide you with a modest list of things to read each day (good quality). That would help with the "enlighten" thing.

Anyone want to bet NYT is near the top of the list? :wink:

0 Replies

Salon.com?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
snood wrote:
JW:

Quote:
1) Capturing Bin Laden
(2) Defusing the middle east powder keg
(3)Making everybody in the world love America
(4) Putting the moderates in power in Iran.

Can we take from your flippant list that the present administration has some clue of how to go about solving these?

JW forgets in 2000 that we had managed most of that ... before Bush took over!!

Anon

We have a winner for the most ridiculous assertion of the week!

Why?

Okay, apart from (1), but

(2) wasn't there a peace process going on re Israel/Palestinia?
(3) wasn't there a lot less anti-Americanism around than there is today?
(4) wasn't Khatami a lot more moderate than Ahmadinejad?

Sure, the question is whether you want to credit Clinton and blame Bush for the (global) development, but, hey....!

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
snood wrote:
JW:

Quote:
1) Capturing Bin Laden
(2) Defusing the middle east powder keg
(3)Making everybody in the world love America
(4) Putting the moderates in power in Iran.

Can we take from your flippant list that the present administration has some clue of how to go about solving these?

JW forgets in 2000 that we had managed most of that ... before Bush took over!!

Anon

We have a winner for the most ridiculous assertion of the week!

OK Occom, You win ...

In 2000, Iran had a very moderate leaning, Western friendly Admin, which was trying to improve relations with the West. I can get a name for you if you wish. Probably some info out there about what they were trying to do if you are smart enough to look for it.

In 2000, Saddam was inert ... with no WMD's, no Army, and no ability to threaten anyone! That was all Bush Lies!

There were no terrorist attacks in Iraq, or on Continental America ... until Bush took over.

The Twin Towers were still standing ... until Bush took over. No attack had been pulled off on Continental America since the one at the very first of Clintons Admin. Seeings how Bushes Admin considers it great success that is has been it has been four years since the WTC attack, we can use his guidelines to show that the Clinton Admin was wildly successful!! Clinton by the way, didn't need to create and initialize a war at the cost of 323 Billion to do it! Not to mention dead and wounded. (Why aren't you one of them??)

The mid-east was relatively uneventful at that time, something that Bush cannot say. Don't forget that Bush shot off his ignorant mouth about the Axis of Evil, which precede the election of the Islamic Hardliners we now have in Iraq, and the stunning Hamas victory in Palestine.

So I may win the most ridiculous assertion, but you win being the most stupid ... Congratulations!!

Anon

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

And...like Foxy...I'd turn my back on any party that behaved as shamefully as the Democrats did at Mrs. King's funeral the other day.

Except, when conservative Republicans do, you won't see it. You just won't. Automatic defence systems go up at the hint of shameful behaviour on the part of your party (which I define as the Republican Party-as-long-as-it's-run-by-conservatives).

If you'd see it, yes, you surely would turn your back on it, because you're a good person. Thats why you wont let yourself see it. I guess thats how loyalty works.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know