Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I thought the Republican line re Florida is that the stupid voters trended Democrat?

geez, almost missed this one...

this Ty, is our stance about stupid voters everywhere, some stupid people with graduate degrees sure, and others who are smarter but confused. for what its worth I see you as confused. You should move to Mississippi for a year, then you'll see what I mean.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And just what part of the country do you live in?

large Midwest state which went for Al.....in an extremely liberal suburb. I have the same bad influence you have I just know to fight it. it a red pill/ blue pill thing

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Bush's greatest strength, or potentially scariest weakness, depending on your perspective, is he actually believes in things and wouldn't let polls deter him.

It's fantastic that you actually believe this, but do you realize that you really shouldn't be operating heavy machinery? Bush believes in good and evil (he's on the side of good), and in tax cuts for the wealthy. After that, it's all up for grabs. Free trade? Hello, steel workers. Nation building? He was dead-set against it four years ago, but now he's championing the spread of democracy around the world. Small government? Hello, USA PATRIOT Act and increased government spending.

I hope you're right that he's going to stay the course in Iraq, whatever that means. It's not working, and you can bet Karl Rove would rather he not have that dead albatross hanging there next November.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hello
I was hoping nobody would ask this one.

Geez, I'm nice enough to talk to ya, and I get accused of softballery. I feel so used.

For a presidential candidate, supporting a "theoretical" war in the face of "imminent danger" is the intellectual equivalent of supporting a chicken in every pot.

Many quotes, when taken out of context, are meaningless.

"I would not hesitate to act preemptively if the U.S. was in imminent danger," Clark said. But he added that Bush's policy is more one of "preventive war," which Clark condemned as a strategy of hitting nations that do not pose an imminent threat.

Iraq fits this category, he said.

I disagree with you that it is meaningless to point out that while an imminent threat would justify preemptive action (which is itself a break from our historical viewpoint, I might add), the Iraq war was something else entirely. You probably would take some issue with that assessment, but it is far less of a truism than you make it out to be.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

I disagree with you that it is meaningless to point out that while an imminent threat would justify preemptive action (which is itself a break from our historical viewpoint, I might add), the Iraq war was something else entirely. You probably would take some issue with that assessment, but it is far less of a truism than you make it out to be.

It might be that we just disagree about the meaning of "imminent danger". To me, that's NORAD on the phone screaming "HOLY FUCK, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE... THEY JUST LAUNCHED THIRTY THOUSAND NUKES AT US AND THEY WILL BE HERE IN 6 MINUTES".

I mean, who wouldn't turn on the Missile Defense Shield and launch a counterstrike under those circumstances?

And what makes you think its "a break from our historical viewpoint"? I'd bet Jimmy Carter would even press the red button under those circumstances. Or at least he never suggested that he wouldn't.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Nation building? He was dead-set against it four years ago, but now he's championing the spread of democracy around the world. Small government? Hello, USA PATRIOT Act and increased government spending.

Remember that thing with the Towers that went BOOM? You remember that, Ty, right? Let's see, that was after all those comments he made in 2000, wasn't it?

You think possibly that his worldview changed once the fuckers attacked us on our soil for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY???

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Remember that thing with the Towers that went BOOM? You remember that, Ty, right? Let's see, that was after all those comments he made in 2000, wasn't it?

You think possibly that his worldview changed once the fuckers attacked us on our soil for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY???

I like to think of it as him beginning to see the light. Pity all those people had to die before he did, but I guess with some people it takes more than with others.

Edited to add that I think there's more to nation-building than invading and taking over, and that nation-building seems inconsistent with alienating most of our allies, but he's still on the learning curve.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Remember that thing with the Towers that went BOOM? You remember that, Ty, right? Let's see, that was after all those comments he made in 2000, wasn't it?

You think possibly that his worldview changed once the fuckers attacked us on our soil for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY???

Explain to me how his thinking changed as a result of 9/11. This ought to be good. For that matter, explain to me what the invasion and attempted reconstruction of Iraq has to with 9/11. Is Osama the top, or is that Saddam?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by hello
It might be that we just disagree about the meaning of "imminent danger". To me, that's NORAD on the phone screaming "HOLY FUCK, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE... THEY JUST LAUNCHED THIRTY THOUSAND NUKES AT US AND THEY WILL BE HERE IN 6 MINUTES".

Again, I have the sinking feeling that I brought my geometry textbook to chemistry class. Wouldn't what you describe be a "retaliatory" strike?

I thought the point here is that we're talking about preemptive action, i.e. before someone overtly attacks us. That is what i see as a break with our tradition of only attacking when provoked, and that's why Wes is pointing out that there are imminent threats that are not currently ripening into outright attacks that he would take military action to eliminate. The further point being that Iraq is not one of them.

I'd bet Jimmy Carter would even press the red button under those circumstances. Or at least he never suggested that he wouldn't.

Y'know, combining your hardliner military approach with your occasional cryptic references to past jobs as a "cleaner" or similar employee of the govt, I kind of envision you as being similar to Hannibal Smith from the A-Team. But strangely, the picture in my head while I read your posts is always the shot of Hannibal they showed during the opening theme song when he's dressed up as a tree and smoking a cigar. I have no idea why this is, but it's funny to think of Hannibal the tree belittling Jimmy Carter.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's fantastic that you actually believe this, but do you realize that you really shouldn't be operating heavy machinery?

once at a summer job, after liquid lunch, I drove a fork lift into a bunch of inventory, plus my mom made me drive her to the store once on acid (she didn't know) and I hit a light post, so believe me I know i need to avoid heavy machinery. but trust me, your arguments are not "heavy machinery."

Nation building? He was dead-set against it four years ago, but now he's championing the spread of democracy around the world.

did you read the article you cite? it sums up bush's stance in 2000 as:

The other candidate was contemptuous of this woolly-minded notion, saying American blood and treasure should be spent only in humanitarian emergencies or to protect our own narrowly defined self-interest.

he invaded Iraq to "protect our own narrowly defined self-interest." you disagree that it was in our self-interest. OK. he felt it was. OK?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
did you read the article you cite? it sums up bush's stance in 2000 as:

[quote omitted to protect the innocent]

he invaded Iraq to "protect our own narrowly defined self-interest." you disagree that it was in our self-interest. OK. he felt it was.

OK, you've established that Bush is a man of principle because he said in 2000 that he would act in our self-interest, and he thinks he has done so. Hard to argue with that. Lead on, we're right behind you.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
OK, you've established that Bush is a man of principle because he said in 2000 that he would act in our self-interest, and he thinks he has done so. Hard to argue with that. Lead on, we're right behind you.

Whoa, and that's quite the stance to take. Usually politicians brag about how what they are going to do is not in the best interest of the country.

Hank truly has pointed out a way in which Bush has changed the political landscape.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
OK, you've established that Bush is a man of principle because he said in 2000 that he would act in our self-interest, and he thinks he has done so. Hard to argue with that. Lead on, we're right behind you.

you argued the article shows he switched. I point out he didn't switch and what the article says he said is consistant with what he did. then you say what the article said was so vague as to be a truism. Well okay, but its your article to support your point which means you're the one without any support. right?


confidential to ty
are there 2 of you that alternate?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Whoa, and that's quite the stance to take. Usually politicians brag about how what they are going to do is not in the best interest of the country.

Hank truly has pointed out a way in which Bush has changed the political landscape.

see above. sometimes less is more Fringe.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you argued the article shows he switched. I point out he didn't switch and what the article says he said is consistant with what he did. then you say what the article said was so vague as to be a truism. Well okay, but its your article to support your point which means you're the one without any support. right?


confidential to ty
are there 2 of you that alternate?

Characterizing two conflicting policies as both being "in national interest" or whatever is NOT evidence that he hasn't changed his stance. It's evidence that he's using the same characterization for two totally different stances.

2000: I will paint my bedroom pink because it is the best color ever and no other color will do!

2002: I will paint my bedroom green because it is the best color ever and no other color will do!

You, defending me: In both cases she said it's the best color ever, so she's always going with the best color ever, so how can you say her stance changed?

And your avatar is way, way ugly.

Edited to change "moniker" to "avatar," though the moniker is not inspired either.