Terrorists & Liberals in Shock & Awe!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

Just a couple of thoughts,

I don’t equate liberalism with being in bed with American enemies.

To me, there are generally two types of people I encounter not on the Right: liberals and leftists. An oversimplification to be sure, but it works for me.

Liberals are exactly that: liberal-minded, generally tolerant, given to modernism, urban, interested in the income gap, of a belief that liberties can continue to expand, of a belief that America should tone down its masculinity, and generally supportive of government expanding its role in the quest to help people.

These are fine people - I can do business with these people. I am friends with people who think like this. Just because they disagree with the current administration doesn’t mean they are traitors.

Then there are Leftists: Liberals that are prone to believing nearly every conspiracy available, desirous for revolution or the equivalent, preachers of tolerance yet completely intolerant of anyone who doesn’t toe the line of their ideology (ie, they can’t have a considered conversation with a conservative), loathing of the West, and who define themselves by what they despise.

In my view: Clinton is a liberal. Michael Moore is a leftist.

And I, to borrow from Rainjack, want to see the Leftists crushed. I don’t like extremes, especially those guided by ignorance. Leftists are practically traitors - they often side with the enemy in a given conflict. They reflexively blame America with everything, even when America is attacked. They despise the American tradition, even though the American tradition was earned through war and preserved in law by the Constitution.

That being said, I fault the far Left for the state of polarization we have currently. I haven’t really heard a peep from the far Right - and, so I can beat it to the punch, George W. Bush is not, repeat not, an extreme right-winger.

But are liberals the same or close to terrorists? No. Not even close. We’ve always had a good supply of liberalism and conservatism here in America, and that is what makes the country great.

22

“Then there are Leftists: Liberals that are prone to believing nearly every conspiracy available, desirous for revolution or the equivalent, preachers of tolerance yet completely intolerant of anyone who doesn’t toe the line of their ideology (ie, they can’t have a considered conversation with a conservative), loathing of the West, and who define themselves by what they despise.”
thunderbolt23

=> I completely agree.

=> Michael Moore is accurately depicted in the attached photo.

CJR

23

Nice photo CJR. Made me laugh. I don’t think it is completely accurate, though. Michael Moore probably weighs a few more pounds than the individual in the photo.

Seriously, though. I say lay off Mike Moore. Fundamentally, I think he’s a decent guy with a kind heart. Even if you don’t agree with all his solutions to the world’s problems (and I don’t), I think you’ve got to respect him for that.

JR

24

Some of you may say that I’m sitting on the fence, but I don’t buy into either the liberal or the conservative bullshit. On some topics I agree with the liberals, and on others I agree with the conservatives. For instance, here are some of my views:

  • The government needs to butt out of my personal life and stop telling me what’s best for me. We need small government instead of big government.

  • I am pro-choice.

  • I am anti gun-control.

  • I believe that religion has no place in public schools.

I can respect anyone’s opinion as long as it’s really the way they feel on the issue. What I cannot stand are spineless fucks that vote on party lines simply because they are party lines. This does no one any good.

Overall, I’m distrustful of the government, whether it’s democrats or republicans running the show. Politicians will lie to us, and that’s nothing new.
If the administration said “we’re going to invade iraq because we want to” I would have more respect for them than if they made up some story about WMD. I’m not saying that’s why we are in Iraq, but I do feel that we aren’t getting the whole story on the motive.

I just want a government that will respect us for the intelligent people that we can be (most of us anyway) and stop feeding us bullshit.

I’m not sure what my point in this post is, but I’ve probably pissed some closed-minded goon off, so go ahead and flame away.

25

Do you really think that there were no WMD’s in Iraq? Hell, even if you do, do you believe Bush thought there weren’t?

Unless he honestly didn’t believe they were there, he didn’t lie. If he honsetly believed they were there, he put his political future on the line to protect all of us from a madman.

If the intellegence he was given turns out to be wrong (which I don’t think will ultimately happen), how can you fault the man for having the guts to take a stand and say “I’m going to do what I think is needed to protect my country, even if it is not popular”? How can you not respect that? I’m willing to act on questionable information when my family’s safety is at stake.

It scares the shit out of me to think we could soon have a leader that takes polls before he decides to act to protect us. Iran is about to go nuclear soon. Do you doubt they would hesitate to blow the hell out of you and your loved ones if that happens? Do you want a man in office who cares more about his political career than your family’s safety?

I don’t toe the Republican line, but I know which party ultimately has my best interests at heart.

-I’m anti-religion
-I’m anti-abortion
-I’m pro-gay marriage if it will keep the homos from being such sluts
-I’m pro-legalization of prostitution and marijuanna even though I use neither
-I’m anti-unions
-I’m anti-federal funding of education
Most importantly:

-I’m pro-not getting my family nuked by some Islamic asshole extremist.

In the end I’m for the party that leaves me with the most money and that I think will do the best job of killing people who want to hurt my family.

26

It scares the shit out of me to think we could soon have a leader that takes polls before he decides to act to protect us.

So, where do you get this little propaganda gem from? Are you basing this on the fact that he has been purposefully made to look indecisive?

He didn’t seem very indecisive when he was killing America’s enemies in battle, at least according to the reports of his activities. What makes you think he’s a big pussy now?

However, having seen battle first hand and killed enemies face to face himself, he decided he was against a particular war and protested it. Seems reasonable to me.

I’m not trying to be pro-Kerry per se, but it’s disappointing to see statements that are the result of the republican propaganda machine (and yes their is a democrat propaganda machine too) used to dismiss Kerry.

Similarly, it is disappointing to see the same being done to trash Bush. There are surely good reasons to trash both candidates – don’t get me wrong. However, dig a little deeper and find out what they really are.

27

[quote]vroom wrote:
So, where do you get this little propaganda gem from? Are you basing this on the fact that he has been purposefully made to look indecisive?
[/quote]

I think, based on Clinton’s two terms, it is a valid statement. Propaganda suggests that their is no merit to the statement.

Clinton stuck his finger in the air everytime a decision needed to be made. He himself has said that the Waco ordeal could have been handled better had he went with his gut instead of listening to his ‘advisors’.

Those same ‘advisors’ still have their fingers in the pot with Kerry. Besides, how many times has Kerry changed his message in the last year?

Opinion? Maybe. Not propaganda

28

Vroom,

You seem to be a little think-skinned as to the assessments of Kerry. What are the Republicans supposed to do, talk about what a great candidate he would make?

Let’s take inventory:

  1. You can’t attack Kerry on his patriotism. That’s fair - he served admirably. His actions after the war are fair game to discuss, separate from his service, but not according to his supporters.

  2. You can’t attack Kerry on his voting record - which is where the claims of indecisiveness spawn. But this apparently should be off-limits.

  3. You can’t attack his style, like his wildly elliptical speech patterns that confuse - but also demonstrate, perhaps, an inability to communicate and lead straightforwardly.

Hmm. So both Kerry’s style and substance are off-limits to criticize.

What’s left?

Only one scenario: the RNC must endorse Kerry for president along with Bush.

I don’t like negative campaigning personally. I don’t care for it from either party. But the election is a competition for the position of leader of the free world, and treating candidates with kid gloves is ridiculous.

Kerry has to stand by his decisions in public life. As does Bush. Attacking someone is not automatically negative campaigning. Calling Kerry a bad father is negative campaigning. Questioning Kerry’s decisions in public service is not.

I’m all for cleaning up politics, but it’s not a business for the sensitive.

29

“It scares the shit out of me to think we could soon have a leader that takes polls before he decides to act to protect us.”

“He didn’t seem very indecisive when he was killing America’s enemies in battle, at least according to the reports of his activities. What makes you think he’s a big pussy now?”

Where do you come up with this stuff vroom? Your response has nothing to do with the statement posted.

How many people he killed in war has absolutely nothing to do with his political leadership abilities. I’m sure there were many a meathead soldier that killed far more enemies than kerry, doesn’t mean they are good political leaders does it?

The origional statement was directed at his flip flopping on issues to stay on the majority side of them, thus proving he does whatever he can to make people happy, thus he is a spineless typical politician.

Next time try making a relative rebuttle to a criticism of kerry.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

30

[i]1. You can’t attack Kerry on his patriotism. That’s fair - he served admirably. His actions after the war are fair game to discuss, separate from his service, but not according to his supporters.

  1. You can’t attack Kerry on his voting record - which is where the claims of indecisiveness spawn. But this apparently should be off-limits.

  2. You can’t attack his style, like his wildly elliptical speech patterns that confuse - but also demonstrate, perhaps, an inability to communicate and lead straightforwardly.[/i]

Thunder, nice post. You can attack Kerry on all three of the points you have mentioned, but I’d prefer it be done using real information as opposed to simple regurgitation of negative advertising. Anyway, the rest of this is not directed “at you” but just at the forum in general.

Sure, those of you who are Bush supporters realize how inaccurate and unfair negative ads directed at Bush actually are. Well, how come you are so blind to those same unfair and inaccurate statements when negative ads are directed at Kerry?

For example, you can disagree with the fact that Kerry “threw away” his medals as a protest gesture. You can feel he was wrong in thinking that the Vietnam war was a mistake. You can talk about those issues (or any others) all you want. However, in reality, you don’t have to paint him as unworthy of earning his medals in order to criticize him appropriately. Find some real supportable examples.

Also, you can certainly criticize his voting record. But, unless you want to parrot pure propaganda, which many do, you should look into the issues surrounding the votes and what other people were voting at the same time. Was Kerry simply voting party politics like most other (democrats and republicans) or was he out taking a stance on the issues you are raising as judgement criteria. I mean, how much do you know about his viewpoints if he is simply voting party lines like so many other politicians?

What does it mean if you have to vote on a bill that contains gun controls, increased money to pay for government services, some cuts to military expenditure and increased funding to some schools? Is someone then for big government, not for a strong military, in favor of public school funding and for gun controls?

What if such a vote by Kerry was on a republican sponsored bill and it was important to get government funding through? You can’t just take the propaganda negative ads as gospel. If you want to argue such things usefullly, dig into the details and show him truly and actually waffling as has been suggested. He may have, but from what I’ve seen there are very good counter arguments to such claims so far. Show some real examples.

Finally, if he speaks in a way that confuses people, then by all means criticize him for that. Show examples of it. You can criticize the man for anything you like, but I’m rallying for criticism, not blanket regurgitation of propaganda. Let’s here real complaints. This is a reasonable request in the other direction as well.

Those of you who are Bush supporters and are crying about Michael Moore spreading propaganda, and how “wrong” it is, should be sensitive to the use of propaganda in all instances. If not, why not? If you see me spouting propaganda by all means feel free to call me on it. If you see me voicing an opinion and trying to support it then by all means disagree or show me to otherwise be mistaken.

31

Veg, what are you on? You question my tact and then proceed to show exactly why my statement is right on target…

[i]He didn’t seem very indecisive when he was killing America’s enemies in battle, at least according to the reports of his activities. What makes you think he’s a big pussy now?

The origional statement was directed at his flip flopping on issues to stay on the majority side of them, thus proving he does whatever he can to make people happy, thus he is a spineless typical politician.[/i]

I used the sage term “big pussy” whereas you use the alternate “spineless”… what point am I missing?

32

Political ads are generally unfair on both sides – you can argue which are worse for days.

33

Vroom,

On most everything here, I think we agree.

And I think you’re right on voting records, particularly for those who have served a very long time. Practically every bill that comes beofre Congress now is laden with so many riders that even if you like the main substance of the bill, you may vote against it because of all the extra crap, giveaways, and nonsense that is included.

Those who have served for a long time have more than their share of these kinds of votes on record. They deserve a fair look rather than a reflexive judgment.

As for Kerry’s medal throwing - no one said he couldn’t do it, but he must accept the consequences that many people find his actions dishonorable, even if he did them in his own good conscience. But further to the point, Kerry never seems to answer questions about the medal-throwing directly - in fact, there is an interview where Kerry is trying to correct his questioner by claiming he threw his medals ‘across’ not ‘away’. I’ll try and find a reference.

34

vroom -

You want the right to defend their charges with real proof - not propaganda. Yet you counter with just as much proofless propagada from the left.

If your making the rules - then you should be obliged to play by them.

I responded with facts - you won’t even acknowledge them. WRT to your reply to thunders post - not a shred of fact to support your position.

Get off you soapbox, and join the fray - you have not been appointed referee.

35

I responded with facts - you won’t even acknowledge them. WRT to your reply to thunders post - not a shred of fact to support your position.

Rainjack, I’m not sure what you are talking about either. I basically told thunder that he could indeed attack Kerry on all of the points he had brought up. I went so far as to show some examples of what an industrious person could do to dig up some good material for an attack.

Are you haranguing me for not going all out and trying to formulate an attack on Kerry myself or for not proving that some of the attacks on Kerry are indeed propaganda? I don’t think I said anything about Bush at all, so I’m not sure what propaganda I could have been spouting.

As far as what Clinton did or did not do, I don’t feel there is much to comment about. Bill doesn’t seem to be on the presidential ticket as far as I am aware. If he was able to he’d probably win (again) and hire some sexy interns (and no I’m not calling Monica sexy)… :stuck_out_tongue:

36

“Finally, if he speaks in a way that confuses people, then by all means criticize him for that. Show examples of it.”

When he said he “voted for the bill, before he voted against it”

(The bill for 87 billion for Iraq reconstruction).

He didn’t do a very good job of explaining why he changed his mind, although if you dig a little deeper, it makes more sense.

Do you guys claim Bush is not a flip-flopper? Give me a break!

Also, Bush is not a moderate.
-Big spending - big deficits - growing the bureaucracy
-pre-emptive war (the Bush Doctrine)
-dissolving the lines between church and state
-altering the Constitution (gay marriage ban)

These are just the obvious quick examples. None of these policies are conservative, and the first 2 (Bush doctrine, runaway spending) will probably be what Bush is remembered for.

37

Vroom, the point you are missing is that you brought up the fact that he was not a big pussy because he killed people in battle. I agree, but that doesn’t have anything to do with his wish to please the masses and go with whatever is popular. This is a different kind of being a pussy, it involves not having any set morals or values and just doing whatever is popular to gain popular support to further his career. This type of politician is bad for democracy, they play to the stupid masses and make them feel good. The reason we have leaders is because the masses are stupid and masses act on emotion generally.

To quote a line from Men in Black.
“A person is smart; people are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it” - K

This is why we have government and this is why we should select our leaders for their values, morals and ideals. Bush has clear values, morals and ideals, you know where he is coming from even if you disagree. I cannot honestly say the same thing about Kerry. Trust me when I say this, I don’t think GWB is a great president, Maybe not even a very good one. He is not a Bad president though, and I can’t friggin tell what the hell kerry stands for so I can’t even consider him.

So to re-iterate, you argued kerry’s resolve by showing he killed people in battle, when what was being questioned was his political, emotional and itellectual resolve. Two different things me boy. :wink:

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

38

Veg, I can see your point, but I’m not sure I’m willing to agree with it yet. I may be wrong, but unless the man has changed a lot, he once had character and strength.

It’s possible that he no longer has such strength or that he hasn’t had an opportunity to show this strength. It could be that he has been searching for ways to oppose Bush while being wary of being branded a pacifistic sackless traitor in the process.

I think the real race has yet to begin. I’m hoping that both candidates will have chances to reveal themselves, their viewpoints, and their character. There is plenty of time yet for some solid stances to be adopted.

My guess is that Kerry is keeping his powder dry. Things are pretty fluid and volatile. Taking a strong stance too early might be political suicide given how much time their is for change or progress in most of the big issues.

Maybe not. I won’t claim to know the man or how his campaign will be unfolding.

39

I agree that kerry might be keeping his powder dry also, But I personally don’t find that to be the trait of a president that I want in office. I want someone who takes a stand for what they believe in and clearly states such. Over and over so there is no mistake of what his points are. Bush does this and some people criticise him because he repeats himself all the time. Really he is displaying his integrity, over and over, even when things go wrong, he stands by his decision because at the time he thought it was the best option. Actions speak much louder than words and so far bush has taken a lot of action and a lot of good has come of it. Some bad too, but at least he didn’t sit around and do nothing.

To relate it to lifting, you have several types, many here on the forums are typ A, know how to lift, can discuss it intelligently, and actually act out regularly what we talk about. Then there is your class b lifters, they don’t understand everything that group a does, maybe for lack of intelligence, lack of time, or lack of care, but they still go in the gym regularly and lift. They aren’t as big or well developed as group a but they grow and get stronger nonetheless. Then you have group C who know a lot of shit about lifting and can talk about it all day but never go to the gym and do anything so they are scrawny twigs or fat blobs. Then comes group D who know nothing and do nothing.

Bush might be a group B in comparison but you can’t fault him for not trying hard to do good things. I’m not sure what group Kerry falls into yet because besides vietnam service, I don’t know what he has done for this country to really help things out. I also don’t know if the guy knows what the hell he is talking about because he uses such generalized ideas and goals and doesn’t seem to have much of a plan to actually do anything. Seems like a dud to me but thats just me and why I think it.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

40

I want someone who takes a stand for what they believe in and clearly states such. Over and over so there is no mistake of what his points are. Bush does this and some people criticise him because he repeats himself all the time. Really he is displaying his integrity, over and over, even when things go wrong, he stands by his decision because at the time he thought it was the best option.

I won’t try to fault you for having an opinion or interpretation, that is for sure. However, surely you can see that other folks will see the same actions and make a completely different judgement.

My own take is not that he displays integrity, but that he is merely trying to stay “on message” or avoid trying to say anything on his own so that he won’t goof it up. I think his feet are just itchin for a shot at his mouth and he knows it.

Also, a lot of folks are okay with taking action and taking a stand, but are at odds with staying on the same course as mistakes are identified. One of the principals of life is that we are all human, that we all make mistakes and that we live and learn. Bush is clearly someone prone to make mistakes, but it is as if by not acknowledging them he can simply be right all the time. This administration seems prone to “use any means” to attain a goal and then points elsewhere when problems occur.

I don’t know, I’m not trying to convince you at all. These are just some things that come to mind for me when I think of Bush and his team. And honestly, I don’t know what to think of Kerry yet, I haven’t seen enough of him in action to generate an opinion. If that doesn’t change eventually, if he can’t get people to form an opinion, he’ll be toast for not being willing to sack up and stand up for something.