BostonBarrier, you explained why you think the way you do. It is a shame the majority who seemed to be “also voters” don’t have the same depth of thought. No, you can not argue for someone else’s perspective, however, you can read those old threads for yourself and see the majority of the people on this site who voted like you did don’t have any deeper insight into why or the consequences (please note the word consequences). I personally think that you take the Patriot Act and the united intelligence actions a little too lightly. With both in place, at risk of sounding like the sky is falling, it would appear to create a literal “Big Brother” and give “him” the legal right to take away any privacy anyone even thought they had. I do not understand how these issues took the extreme back seat…hell, some seem to have it trailing behind the car…as everyone runs on and on about “morals”. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That line wasn’t just talking about those with no “morals”.
Our troops need help and the plan is not working. We are focused more on increasing government power and removing check and balances from the intelligence front. That may sound great to those who have the “do whatever you want to remove the terrorists” mentallity, but some of us try to see beyond the immediate. Your man does not want small government. He wants BIG HUGE HUMONGOUS government with more power than it has ever had and a people so adapted to fear that they will gladly fork over that power in the name of protection. Is the common thought that his “morals” will keep the government from abusing this power? I don’t understand.
You are being ridiculous. Kerry wasn’t criticised for “wanting to ask permission”. The republicans characterized his stance as “wanting to ask for permission” when it clearly wasn’t that.
You are merely replacing Kerry’s stances with your preferred interpretation of his stance so that you can knock it down.
All this happens at the same time while you are willing to swallow any statement “as made” by the current administration, as if they aren’t a bunch of politicians themselves.
The fact of the matter is that Bush is now implementing many of the planks in Kerry’s platform, probably because he didn’t really have any ideas other than continue doing what he was already doing.
Now that you are cheering for these ideas because the Bush administration is carrying them out, while you were denouncing them as unreasonable a few months ago, you have become transparent.
Pretending that democrats were not ridiculed and decried for proposing these very same actions is obscene.[/quote]
No, it’s the truth. And how, BTW, do you not critcize Kerry for wanting to ask permission by criticizing Kerry for wanting to ask permission? That one is lost on me.
Which planks of Kerry’s are now being implemented? Was it a plank of Bush’s to not ever go back to allies and open up diplomatic talks? Hasn’t Bush always been for getting as much help as possible – just because he asked without giving a veto doesn’t mean he’s doing the same thing Kerry endorsed. DO you really think that getting cooperation from other countries was solely a Democratic idea? Weren’t the conditions to be attached to getting help from other countries what the fight was about?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrier, you explained why you think the way you do. It is a shame the majority who seemed to be “also voters” don’t have the same depth of thought. No, you can not argue for someone else’s perspective, however, you can read those old threads for yourself and see the majority of the people on this site who voted like you did don’t have any deeper insight into why or the consequences (please note the word consequences). [/quote]
Is it only those that voted for Bush that are void of insightful thinking?
I think if you look at those same threads, there are an equal, if not greater, number of ABBers that would have voted for anyone but Bush. And that requires insightful thinking?
In fact 75% of those that voted for Bush actually voted FOR something, while more than half of Kerry’s support came from those that were voting AGAINST Bush. Hardly an endorsement for insightful thinking on the part of the Kerry supporters.
No, it’s the truth. And how, BTW, do you not critcize Kerry for wanting to ask permission by criticizing Kerry for wanting to ask permission? That one is lost on me.
…[/quote]
Kerry never stated this. NO ONE stated anything about asking permission but other republicans in trying to make it seem as if this was actually said. His stance was working on relations and creating a better alliance, not asking anyone for permission to do anything.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Kerry had plenty of time to refute those ‘made up stances’ - but he didn’t.
Go figure.
[/quote]
Uh, he did loud and clear during the debates. I watched them and heard him say that he was not asking for permission. Again, you hear what you want to hear and selectively exclude everything else.
The only conditions attached were the ones the republicans pretended would be attached.
Kerry placed no conditions. He gave no veto. You imply he would have because it is the republican stance.
Making up your own version of your opponents stance, instead of discussing the real stance, remains obscene.
However, it is how Bush won the election… so it does work. Perhaps that is enough for you.[/quote]
The main problem with Kerry, as was stated many times, is that he really took no stance w/r/t Iraq. His own supporters couldn’t express his position on Iraq – that was problematic.
Now, as to the “veto,” Kerry talked about going to the allies and getting them to sign off before taking action. This was then represented, facetiously, as “Giving France a veto.” Kerry came back with rhetoric to the extent that he would never give another country a veto over defending the United States. This specifically did not address seeking U.N. permission, which he never addressed, and also left open the whole issue of pre-emptive action, which was the crux of the complaint against him. No one assumed he would go ask France if it were OK to repel an invasion on U.S. shores.
No, it’s the truth. And how, BTW, do you not critcize Kerry for wanting to ask permission by criticizing Kerry for wanting to ask permission? That one is lost on me.
…
Kerry never stated this. NO ONE stated anything about asking permission but other republicans in trying to make it seem as if this was actually said. His stance was working on relations and creating a better alliance, not asking anyone for permission to do anything.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
… I personally think that you take the Patriot Act and the united intelligence actions a little too lightly. With both in place, at risk of sounding like the sky is falling, it would appear to create a literal “Big Brother” and give “him” the legal right to take away any privacy anyone even thought they had. I do not understand how these issues took the extreme back seat…hell, some seem to have it trailing behind the car…as everyone runs on and on about “morals”. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That line wasn’t just talking about those with no “morals”. [/quote]
There’s a lot of back-and-forth regarding the Patriot Act – the most controversial provisions expire at the beginning of the coming year. I don’t think reserving judgment until I see what is proposed is taking things too lightly.
Now, as to the intelligence reform act, I thought it was enacted too hastily, and I don’t particularly think it’s the best idea to centralize everying in the way they did. The complaints about 9/11 intelligence might have been helped by more centralization, or they might not have – but the complaints about Iraq intelligence can only be hindered by centralizing everything so there is more group-think going on – and not even competition between the groups.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Our troops need help and the plan is not working. We are focused more on increasing government power and removing check and balances from the intelligence front. That may sound great to those who have the “do whatever you want to remove the terrorists” mentallity, but some of us try to see beyond the immediate. Your man does not want small government. He wants BIG HUGE HUMONGOUS government with more power than it has ever had and a people so adapted to fear that they will gladly fork over that power in the name of protection. Is the common thought that his “morals” will keep the government from abusing this power? I don’t understand.[/quote]
I’m with you here actually. I don’t want a big huge government, and in some instances I think law enforcement has too much power. I have particular problems with the RICO act and laws that allow seizure of all property related to drug related crimes. But so far I haven’t seen problems to nearly those levels with what’s been enacted to fight terrorism domestically.
There’s a lot of back-and-forth regarding the Patriot Act – the most controversial provisions expire at the beginning of the coming year. I don’t think reserving judgment until I see what is proposed is taking things too lightly.
Now, as to the intelligence reform act, I thought it was enacted too hastily, and I don’t particularly think it’s the best idea to centralize everying in the way they did. The complaints about 9/11 intelligence might have been helped by more centralization, or they might not have – but the complaints about Iraq intelligence can only be hindered by centralizing everything so there is more group-think going on – and not even competition between the groups.
I’m with you here actually. I don’t want a big huge government, and in some instances I think law enforcement has too much power. I have particular problems with the RICO act and laws that allow seizure of all property related to drug related crimes. But so far I haven’t seen problems to nearly those levels with what’s been enacted to fight terrorism domestically.
[/quote]
Correction, you haven’t seen those problems YET. Here’s the deal. Many of us who were not on the Bush train felt this was the way he was going. His rush to war, his manipulation of the goals in Iraq and insistance that no mistakes were made…along with the fact that victory was declared even though the war is still going on convinced many who voted against him that he had corporate interests on his mind instead of the people. Those of you in the business world seemed to latch onto that in belief that this would lead to a come up for you…and it may financially. However, this step up seems to come at great risk to civil rights and individual freedoms. Do you realize what having no checks and balances for a section of government that powerful means? These people have surveillance and spy technology far beyond what any civilian will ever comprehend. Yet, this power is now at their disposal in complete silence. They can literally bug your house LEGALLY without you knowing it…and you don’t have to be a terrorist. Like I said above, unless you are foolish enough to think that “morals” will keep that from happening, it was with a blind eye that the Patriot Act was ignored in favor of voting for morals and greater censorship. That is like buying a garbage flavored birthday cake simply because it has pretty icing. All I can say, should the negative occur, is that I told you so…which is no comfort to me at all.
Looking to allies. Getting their opinion. I don’t have an issue.
Passing a test for using our forces. No I don’t agree to that or think it is wise. That’s not what a leader does. It’s what Kerry would have done.[/quote]
So, in your mind, the two don’t mean the same and for some reason you think this meant he was going to give control of our army to some other country? I’m sorry, that is insane to even think that unless the man was a traitor to this country. He never stated that and never implied it.
What Kerry possibly meant is that he’d have waited long enough to twist the arms of the members of the security council to get a vote… instead of going without one when it could have been obtained.
However, there was a rush to get the war started, so the time to work with allies wasn’t available. Bush just ignored them claiming “you are either with us or against us”. Words from the great uniter!
As usual, perhaps there is somewhere between ignoring your allies and giving your allies a veto that might be appropriate? Unfortunately for Kerry, he was advocating the US act with a bit more humility – which never goes over well to the public.
Was actually" Your either with the terrorists or us, if your with the terrorists you will suffer their fate"
That was directed against countries that harbor terrorists right after 9/11.
In context it was directed against the Taliban when we offered to let them survive if they kicked out Al-Queda and gave us Bin Laden. Instead they suffered the fate promised them.
It wasn’t directed against Allies of convenience re: Iraq.
The words “You are either with us or against us” were directed at countries who were, or could possibly be, harboring terrorists. It had nothing to do with those countries who may have joined the coalition.
Once again you are chastising the American public (as you do every chance you get) by claiming that acting with humilty would not go over well.