Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,516
Switch Sides?
- Thread starter Lurker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2004 elections
Lurker said:
I'd like to hear 'the other side' say something...anything...anything at all about what their plan is, if they were to have a chance at the helm.
"Bush is bad" is not a plan.
I personally am of the opinion that defeating the fundamentalist Muslim terrorists who would like to kill each and every one of us here (except, of course, those few who are Muslim Arabs), just as they killed Nick Berg, is the number 1 priority on our plate right now.
These entities would kill you, kill your children, kill your mother.
I don't think that, from what I've heard so far, that Kerry is capable of protecting your mother from these entities. I'd like to hear what his plan is for protecting your children.
I haven't heard it yet.
Frank Newgent said:
The bet and promise were illusory to begin with, and not made in good faith. It was made to make a point.
Nothing will change some people.
One wonders why.
What is the payoff?
Thankfully they were a minority last time, and will be next time when more scrutiny will be paid to the polls before the last minute.
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,516
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Re: Re: Switch Sides?
Well, the truly interested person might actually go to Kerry's website to see what the man has to say instead of doing nothing. From his site;
1. Kerry would provide more funds to local police and fire crews
2. Increase the # of linguists in critical areas for Intel
3. Ensure agencies work together better
4. Develop new standards for port security.
5. Make Iraq a NATO venture
and so on...
Kerry is not much different than Bush so if you think Kerry is incapable of defending us then you must think the same of Bush, but wait, Bush WAS incapable of defending us! Whooops!
Lurker
kerfer said:
Well, the truly interested person might actually go to Kerry's website to see what the man has to say instead of doing nothing. From his site;
1. Kerry would provide more funds to local police and fire crews
2. Increase the # of linguists in critical areas for Intel
3. Ensure agencies work together better
4. Develop new standards for port security.
5. Make Iraq a NATO venture
and so on...
Kerry is not much different than Bush so if you think Kerry is incapable of defending us then you must think the same of Bush, but wait, Bush WAS incapable of defending us! Whooops!
Lurker
davefoc
Philosopher
My reaction to your 5 reasons to vote for Kerry.
1. Bad idea. One of the strengths of the US is the distribution of power. Independent local law enforcement is one of the bulwarks of that strength. Turning local law enforcement into the paid conscripts of the federal government is harmful to our democracy and our freedoms.
2. Increase number of linquists. Duh. I find it hard to believe that this is not already a priority, particularly arabic. I doubt Kerry's election will make any substantive difference here.
3. Ensure agencies work together better. It is possible that electing Kerry will make some improvement, but I suspect that the Bush administration (admittedly well after the fact) is working on better interagency communication mightily.
4. Develop new standards for port security. He might be able to make some substantive improvements here, but this is not proving to be an easy area to deal with. It seems to be fairly well mired in a combination of it's not my problem and politics right now.
5. Make Iraq a NATO venture. I'm not sure this is a good idea. I'm not sure that NATO would suck in for something like this. I do think that Kerry may be much better at handling the Iraq occupation/disengagement than Bush. For one thing, I don't think Rumsfeld will end up being his choice for secretary of defense which will help a lot.
It is hard to imagine that he couldn't have a more sophisticated view of the situation than Bush who during the Iraq war buildup:
1. talked about a crusade to bring freedom to the area (nice demonstration of his feeling for the sensibilities of the area),
2. talked about Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations in a speech on Iraq (It's always nice to emphasize the areas of major disagreement when attempting to win hearts and minds during an occupation)
3. has gone out of his way to insult the French and Germans whose main problem seems to be that they were right about WMD
4. made an idiotic turn toward Sharon who continues to destroy the homes and lives of Palestinians in the Gaza strip (Before the prison pictures came along this move by Bush might have been the best recruiting tool that the people resisting occupation had going).
1. Bad idea. One of the strengths of the US is the distribution of power. Independent local law enforcement is one of the bulwarks of that strength. Turning local law enforcement into the paid conscripts of the federal government is harmful to our democracy and our freedoms.
2. Increase number of linquists. Duh. I find it hard to believe that this is not already a priority, particularly arabic. I doubt Kerry's election will make any substantive difference here.
3. Ensure agencies work together better. It is possible that electing Kerry will make some improvement, but I suspect that the Bush administration (admittedly well after the fact) is working on better interagency communication mightily.
4. Develop new standards for port security. He might be able to make some substantive improvements here, but this is not proving to be an easy area to deal with. It seems to be fairly well mired in a combination of it's not my problem and politics right now.
5. Make Iraq a NATO venture. I'm not sure this is a good idea. I'm not sure that NATO would suck in for something like this. I do think that Kerry may be much better at handling the Iraq occupation/disengagement than Bush. For one thing, I don't think Rumsfeld will end up being his choice for secretary of defense which will help a lot.
It is hard to imagine that he couldn't have a more sophisticated view of the situation than Bush who during the Iraq war buildup:
1. talked about a crusade to bring freedom to the area (nice demonstration of his feeling for the sensibilities of the area),
2. talked about Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations in a speech on Iraq (It's always nice to emphasize the areas of major disagreement when attempting to win hearts and minds during an occupation)
3. has gone out of his way to insult the French and Germans whose main problem seems to be that they were right about WMD
4. made an idiotic turn toward Sharon who continues to destroy the homes and lives of Palestinians in the Gaza strip (Before the prison pictures came along this move by Bush might have been the best recruiting tool that the people resisting occupation had going).
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
davefoc said:
Well, I did just grab five, there are plenty more where those came form and that kind of was my point. People say that Kerry or Bush ahs no plan. What they are really saying is that one or the other has no plan that can fit in a soundbyte on TV. Big surprise. So I was just trying to show that if one is truly interested, go to the candidate's website and find out.
I make no judgement whether Kerry's plans are better/worse than Bush's.
Lurker
You're saying that you don't think NATO would be willing to take the job right? Assuming that, you might be right, but even if NATO isn't willing to actually take full responsibility there, it will be much easier for Kerry to support than for Bush. Partly because he seems more willing to listen to Europe or just agrees more with us, but also because he just isn't Bush. Bush has managed to make it a very bad move politically for a European leader to support him, which will make it almost impossible for him to gain significant support. Kerry won't have that problem; in fact I think he will have a huge amount of goodwill to start with if he's elected.davefoc said:
davefoc
Philosopher
Just a small digression onto your item #1.
Shrinking the size of the federal goverenment and increased local control was one of those core issues that kept me voting Republican.
That kind of reason to vote for Bush largely doesn't exist as I see it. You have Ashcroft trying to foist his personal view of morality with regard to assisted suicides on to Oregon, you have Bush trying to push his personal educational agenda onto all the states and you have Bush putting through a massive drug plan designed to make already wealthy drug companies even wealthier. My suspicion, is that the role of the federal government will be no larger under Kerry than under Bush (especially if one includes the agricultural subsidy slush fund that is such a favorite of Republicans) and a small government Republican will have no trouble not voting for Bush in this election.
Shrinking the size of the federal goverenment and increased local control was one of those core issues that kept me voting Republican.
That kind of reason to vote for Bush largely doesn't exist as I see it. You have Ashcroft trying to foist his personal view of morality with regard to assisted suicides on to Oregon, you have Bush trying to push his personal educational agenda onto all the states and you have Bush putting through a massive drug plan designed to make already wealthy drug companies even wealthier. My suspicion, is that the role of the federal government will be no larger under Kerry than under Bush (especially if one includes the agricultural subsidy slush fund that is such a favorite of Republicans) and a small government Republican will have no trouble not voting for Bush in this election.
davefoc
Philosopher
Kerberos,
Even if NATO was willing to get involved I am not sure it is a good idea that they do. The organization is quite diverse now and I would be afraid that the divisiveness of an issue like Iraq would weaken the organization. NATO might be a valuable tool for something in the future. My view, which could easily be changed, is that I think it would be a bad idea for NATO to be involved.
I did basically agree with everything you said though. For a variety of reasons Bush is probably a very unappealing fellow in Europe right now and any chance of significant European support for a transition in Iraq is very small if Bush remains the president.
Even if NATO was willing to get involved I am not sure it is a good idea that they do. The organization is quite diverse now and I would be afraid that the divisiveness of an issue like Iraq would weaken the organization. NATO might be a valuable tool for something in the future. My view, which could easily be changed, is that I think it would be a bad idea for NATO to be involved.
I did basically agree with everything you said though. For a variety of reasons Bush is probably a very unappealing fellow in Europe right now and any chance of significant European support for a transition in Iraq is very small if Bush remains the president.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,863
davefoc said:
I would say it depends upon how many strings were attached. It could be good as a block grant.
Funny you should mention it... during this administration a group of arabic translators (which they were short of in the first place) were fired when it became known they were homosexual. For all the rules being bent in the name of national security, THIS is where they decided to draw the hard line? I think it reveals a lot.
Ahh, but don't you know? The terrorism is god’s punishment for tolerating of homosexuals and their ilkgnome said:
"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jerry-falwell/
Now isn't it better to strike at the root cause of the problem, rather than plant the seed for still more terrorism?
davefoc
Philosopher
Kerberos,
I didn't know about the homosexual translaters. Got a link or more info? I tried to search for some kind of story but couldn't find it.
Gnome,
The federal government rarely puts strings on grants right away. It is in the long run when the local governments are thoroughly dependent on the money that it starts putting strings.
Although, there might be some sort of argument that having the federal government distribute part of the operating budget of local law enforcement agencies based on the idea of distributing wealth from rich states to poor states I think mostly there are only arguments against the idea. If the federal government reduced their income by the amount of money they are distributing it would be easier to for the local governments to raise the money for their own law enforcement agencies through their own taxes. Local agencies could also decide to spend the money in ways that they felt most closely matched their own needs.
It is for ideas like this that many of us have voted for Republicans year after year. Everyday Bush makes us more aware that he is not interested in reaching out to that base of his party because he thinks almost no matter what he does we'll still vote for him. That may be true, but this member of that base won't be voting for him.
I didn't know about the homosexual translaters. Got a link or more info? I tried to search for some kind of story but couldn't find it.
Gnome,
The federal government rarely puts strings on grants right away. It is in the long run when the local governments are thoroughly dependent on the money that it starts putting strings.
Although, there might be some sort of argument that having the federal government distribute part of the operating budget of local law enforcement agencies based on the idea of distributing wealth from rich states to poor states I think mostly there are only arguments against the idea. If the federal government reduced their income by the amount of money they are distributing it would be easier to for the local governments to raise the money for their own law enforcement agencies through their own taxes. Local agencies could also decide to spend the money in ways that they felt most closely matched their own needs.
It is for ideas like this that many of us have voted for Republicans year after year. Everyday Bush makes us more aware that he is not interested in reaching out to that base of his party because he thinks almost no matter what he does we'll still vote for him. That may be true, but this member of that base won't be voting for him.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,863
Kerberos said:
I found several links on Google. Apparently it was originally reported by New Republic--is that a reputable source? I honestly am not familiar with it.
But it was furthermore reported by other sources, they were just the first.
Here is an editorial about it that I found:
http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/111802/OPEDopedlinguists.shtml
Is there anyone that isn't convinced, hearing this, that the apparent priority is in this order:
1. Rooting out homosexuals.
2. National Security
If anyone disagrees and would care to argue back, I am listening.
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,516
I mentioned this on another thread, but since Bush's layers have claimed that it wouldn't really violate anything to "torture" prisoners, if it's undertaken as part of his commander-in chief role, if it isn't to bad or a number of other copouts, Ashcroft really hasn't denied anything.zakur said:
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,516
So nothing was done to support policy which found the norm inapplicable zakur?