LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Nutjobs Ranting About Politics. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=612)

Atticus Grinch 08-10-2004 02:17 PM

The [Dis]organized GOP
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
You're right, you didn't call out the south per se, only the red states. I made the leap.

efs
I still don't know what you're talking about. However, I refuse to engage on this issue with a rightist who vigorously opposes even social condemnation of offensive racial terms as "political correctness" because condemnation chills free expression, but thinks that calling someone a racist is per se reproachable. Talk about mixed up priorities.

Atticus Grinch 08-10-2004 02:18 PM

The [Dis]organized GOP
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It must be comforting to be sooooo perfect as to be capable to make judgements like this about groups of people.
It's a burden, actually. For example, the pretense of humility is hard to maintain.

Hank Chinaski 08-10-2004 02:24 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Where's the flip-flop? He's saying that Congress should have given the President the authority he sought -- i.e., the war powers -- but that the President should have used his authority more wisely.
this shows one of my favorite aspects of JFK. He is so certain to explain his position and how he would act differently than the president. generally, he would have done the same, its just that it would be going better now. Hard not to say yes to that, what?

sgtclub 08-10-2004 02:31 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Where's the flip-flop? He's saying that Congress should have given the President the authority he sought -- i.e., the war powers -- but that the President should have used his authority more wisely. Makes sense to me, although I'm not sure I fully agree.
The flip flop is that he has previously said that Bush mislead us in to war, but he would have voted for it even without WMD. Is that a coherent position?

sgtclub 08-10-2004 02:32 PM

The [Dis]organized GOP
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
However, I refuse to engage on this issue with a rightist who vigorously opposes even social condemnation of offensive racial terms as "political correctness" because condemnation chills free expression, but thinks that calling someone a racist is per se reproachable. Talk about mixed up priorities.
Cite please. You must be thinking about SEF or someone else.

eta: the fact that you call someone a racist is not reproachable in the least (assuming they actualy are). What I'm quibbling with is that you have previously suggested that the entire middle of the country is racist.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2004 02:33 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this shows one of my favorite aspects of JFK. He is so certain to explain his position and how he would act differently than the president. generally, he would have done the same, its just that it would be going better now. Hard not to say yes to that, what?
He understands that this election is a referendum on Bush, which would be an advantage for your side if Bush's failed policies weren't so unpopular. So Kerry isn't the incumbent -- cry me a river. You'll have your chance when Huckabee runs against him in four years.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2004 02:33 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
The flip flop is that he has previously said that Bush mislead us in to war, but he would have voted for it even without WMD. Is that a coherent position?
Yes, if you accept that Bush had information that no one else had. Which is, by the way, true.

sgtclub 08-10-2004 02:35 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, if you accept that Bush had information that no one else had. Which is, by the way, true.
So the position is that Bush mislead us into war, but that going to war was the correct decision?

Hank Chinaski 08-10-2004 02:36 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He understands that this election is a referendum on Bush, which would be an advantage for your side if Bush's failed policies weren't so unpopular.
But if the policy was unpopular why doesn't Kerry just sya he disagreed with it? I think we all know he did in his heart, and his initial vote was due to cowardice. Its the inability to stand for anything, just one fucking thing please, that makes him unfit, right?

Atticus Grinch 08-10-2004 02:38 PM

The [Dis]organized GOP
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Cite please. You must be thinking about SEF or someone else.

eta: the fact that you call someone a racist is not reproachable in the least (assuming they actualy are). What I'm quibbling with is that you have previously suggested that the entire middle of the country is racist.
Cite please, yourself. I've said a lot of crazy shit over the years, but if you can point me to the post where I "suggested" that the entire middle of this country is racist, I'll be happy to explain the nuances to you.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2004 02:39 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
So the position is that Bush mislead us into war, but that going to war was the correct decision?
No, I think his position is that Congress should have given the Executive the authority to go to war if the Executive thought it necessary, but -- from what we now know -- that the Executive ought not to have done so. But I'm just guessing from what you posted.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-10-2004 02:40 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But if the policy was unpopular why doesn't Kerry just sya he disagreed with it? I think we all know he did in his heart, and his initial vote was due to cowardice. Its the inability to stand for anything, just one fucking thing please, that makes him unfit, right?
Kevin Drum on the difference between Bush and Kerry:

Quote:

Today is an appropriate day to write about Bush's penchant for straddling issues because it's the third anniversary of the first great straddle of his presidency: the stem cell straddle. After weeks of well publicized agonizing three summers ago, he announced on August 9, 2001, that he would approve federal funding for embryonic stem cell lines already in existence but not for any new ones. This was an exquisitely calibrated position designed to keep his pro-life credibility intact with his conservative Christian base but still appear reasonable and non-scary to moderate suburbanites.

And that was just the start. He opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, but when public pressure became too strong he changed his mind and supported it after all. He opposed accounting reform after the Enron scandal, but then signed the Sarbanes-Oxley bill as if he had campaigned on the idea. He opposed the 9/11 Commission, but when its recommendations came out he suddenly announced that he would adopt all of them. Except that he didn't: he adopted the language of the commission but none of the substance.

These three straddles have a common feature: initially Bush took one side of the issue, but when it became clear that public opinion was against him he not only switched sides, he did it with gusto. By the time the dust cleared, you would have thought they were his ideas in the first place.

And this was hardly the first time. As governor of Texas, he opposed a Patients' Bill of Rights twice. It finally passed over his opposition and without his signature in 1997, but by 2000, when he was campaigning for the presidency, he was bragging about it. You'd hardly know he had ever been anything but a proud and enthusiastic supporter.

Other straddles follow a different pattern. Bush says he favors free trade, for example, but when his advisors told him he needed to shore up his support in key swing states he promptly proposed tariffs on steel, subsidies for farm goods, and quotas on Chinese bras.

Then there are straddles with more subtlety. After months of tiptoeing around the subject of gay marriage, for example, he finally caved in to his conservative Christian base and announced that he supported a constitutional amendment to ban it. But despite his strong words, he knew very well that it would never pass Congress and did almost nothing to build support for it. Result: street cred with the fundamentalist crowd, but no actual result that can be held against him during the fall campaign.

On other subjects his actions flatly contradict his words. He says he supports veterans and the military, but has consistently opposed efforts to raise their pay and benefits. He said he wouldn't negotiate with North Korea, but after a year of shilly-shallying he began quietly doing exactly that. He claims to favor small government, but has grown government in practically all areas faster than any president since LBJ.

So what explains Bush's reputation as a straight shooter? Two things. First, he has a pair of signature issues on which he's been as resolute as a bulldozer: Iraq and taxes. On these two issues, both of which have widespread support among both his conservative base and voters at large, Bush has been steadfast.

Second, and more important, his rhetoric is simple and uncompromising and most people are surprisingly willing to uncritically accept his speechwriters' words as a reflection of his real self. Even the press, which has seen Bush's clever waffling and straddling on a wide variety of subjects firsthand for nearly four years, has been mostly taken in by his rhetoric. On practically every major issue aside from taxes and Iraq, he's adopted carefully calculated, poll-tested positions, clothed them in unyielding language, and gotten away with it. His reputation for being plainspoken has remained intact.

But if you scratch below the surface, it's pretty plain that Kerry and Bush, like practically all politicians, straddle and waffle in nearly identical ways. If anything, Bush probably does it more than Kerry. The difference is that he does it better. Much, much better.

Sidd Finch 08-10-2004 02:45 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
The flip flop is that he has previously said that Bush mislead us in to war, but he would have voted for it even without WMD. Is that a coherent position?

No, it isn't. I'd be a hell of a lot happier if Kerry had said "If we had known that there were no WMD and known there was no connection to al Qaeda, then I would have voted against going to war in Iraq. It was the wrong thing to do. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and an evil man, and I am glad to see him out of power. But Saddam Hussein was not a threat to this country. Removing a dictator who did not threaten the US was not worth losing over 900 American lives, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, damaging our alliances throughout the world, destroying the international goodwill that we had established through the successful and efficient war [using Clinton's military --I'd have him leave that part out] in Afghanistan, and distracting the world and drawing our resources away from the fight against al Qaeda. We had contained Saddam through the policy of inspections and limited bombings. We were supporting the Iraqi people in their own efforts to bring about democratic change. We should have continued those efforts, and we should have kept this country and the world focused on destroying al Qaeda. When George Bush misled us into war -- by claiming the evidence of WMD was absolutely rock-solid, when he knew that it was much, much less than certain -- he made America less safe."


Anyway. That's what I would have said. But this election is so tight and so fucking poll-driven that integrity of positions is taking a back seat to doing whatever the parties believe will garner advantage in the swing states.

pony_trekker 08-10-2004 02:56 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, it isn't. I'd be a hell of a lot happier if Kerry had said "If we . . .."

And I would add,


"And we should have just nuked all of Iraq into 170k sq. miles of flat black glass anyway."

Hank Chinaski 08-10-2004 02:57 PM

Another Flip Flop
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Kevin Drum on the difference between Bush and Kerry:
you do realize your blogs are no more persuasive a source than your posts or GGG or Club's or anyone else's. You keep posting this drivel like it means something.

And I thought the Dems had a platform plank that the Iraq war was something they supported, I believe Kerry is boxed into saying he supported it as an idea, but now he says not its execution.

What I want to know is what hould he do differently. As long as he keeps explaining how he'd the get French to come and help, I can accept he is being specific about what he'd try and do. That he would not be able to get the French in is clear to anyone with an IQ over 88. I just want JFK to make clear that this is his big difference, or if he has more bright ideas, he highlights those also.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:02 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com