Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Let's look for aim, not just firepower. Bush and Cheney have been too busy aiming at Iraq to pay the attention they should be to aQ.

Of course. Iraq is Bush's Dana Delany: a distraction who is not really essential to the story.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You may think this is a joke, but many of my GOP friends were saying the same thing over the weekend, and they were half serious.

Quadruple heart bypass surgery. It's the new botox!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Quadruple heart bypass surgery. It's the new botox!

Hey, like the Republicans can't schedule a Cheney by-pass if they ever need to.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Disagree. Here's why:

I think Cheney's poorly-expressed point was that Kerry's apparent* philosophy towards terrorism will foster a world view that we will be weaker in our reactions to it, and that, in turn, will lead to a perception that we may be more likely to pull a Spain** than we would be with Bush in charge. If there is more of a hope that terrorism will lead to desired results, there is a greater incentive to hit us hard.

(* - I say "apparent" because I'm not quite sure what his philosophy is.)

(** - to "pull a Spain" replaces "fight like a mad Chirac" in the current lexicon.)

Cheney is a smart guy, and this was not an accident.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Disagree. Here's why:

I think Cheney's poorly-expressed point was that Kerry's apparent* philosophy towards terrorism will foster a world view that we will be weaker in our reactions to it, and that, in turn, will lead to a perception that we may be more likely to pull a Spain** than we would be with Bush in charge. If there is more of a hope that terrorism will lead to desired results, there is a greater incentive to hit us hard.

(* - I say "apparent" because I'm not quite sure what his philosophy is.)

(** - to "pull a Spain" replaces "fight like a mad Chirac" in the current lexicon.)

Disagree to your disagreement, and throw in a sneer for good meaure.

1. Cheney's an intelligent man. I think he meant what he said, and said what he meant. Just as (Mad as) Zell tells us that he picked the interest of his family over his party (read: Vote for Bush or My Family, and Yours, will Die in a Fiery Apocalyptic Hell Thanks to Senator Spitball), Cheney is telling us that if You Vote For Kerry, You Will Die.

It's the GOP platform, Bilmore. We watched days of speeches during the RNC dedicated to this shit. 9/11 was a Republican Event, Ground Zero is a Republican Place, and Iraq is a Republican War. Embrace it with both arms, and feel the love.

2. Kerry has declared to anyone who will listen that he will track terrorists down to the ends of the earth and beat the shit out of them. He advocates increasing significantly the size of our armed forces, and throwing boatloads (hi, SBVT!) of money at the DOD. What more do you want from this guy?

Terrorism is the battle of our age. I am convinced that no national politician in the next generation will be "soft" on terrorism. You will see Democrats as well as Republicans building a military immense and imposing enough to give Reagan wood inside his casket.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Cheney is telling us that if You Vote For Kerry, You Will Die.

It's the GOP platform, Bilmore.

I understand that. I agree with it. I explained why.

2. Kerry has declared to anyone who will listen that he will track terrorists down to the ends of the earth and beat the shit out of them. He advocates increasing significantly the size of our armed forces, and throwing boatloads (hi, SBVT!) of money at the DOD. What more do you want from this guy?

Believability.

Terrorism is the battle of our age. I am convinced that no national politician in the next generation will be "soft" on terrorism. You will see Democrats as well as Republicans building a military immense and imposing enough to give Reagan wood inside his casket.

I wish I could buy this. I don't.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Cheney is a smart guy, and this was not an accident.

I don't think it was. I was merely explaining what makes his statement correct. If we elect Kerry, our chances of getting hit go up.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It was a dumb thing to say, i couldn't give a crap about fair. If there is a hit pre November or after the election it gives Kerry a chance to say, "no its them who exposes you." Before this Bush could say attacks for at least awhile are probably inevitable, but I'll make them less likely. Its a complicated message that you can't make simpler.

It's not complicated at all. It's incredibly simple-minded and stupid. Vote for Bush or die; that was what Cheney meant.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Disagree to your disagreement, and throw in a sneer for good meaure.


2. Kerry has declared to anyone who will listen that he will track terrorists down to the ends of the earth and beat the shit out of them. He advocates increasing significantly the size of our armed forces, and throwing boatloads (hi, SBVT!) of money at the DOD. What more do you want from this guy?

Terrorism is the battle of our age. I am convinced that no national politician in the next generation will be "soft" on terrorism. You will see Democrats as well as Republicans building a military immense and imposing enough to give Reagan wood inside his casket.

Disagree (in part) to your disagreement of Billmore's disagreement. Kerry has indicated that he disagrees with the doctrine of preemption and has stated, albeit subtley, that he will go back on more of a defensive footing (i.e., I will respond if we are attacked v. I will respond before we are attacked).

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Terrorism is the battle of our age. I am convinced that no national politician in the next generation will be "soft" on terrorism. You will see Democrats as well as Republicans building a military immense and imposing enough to give Reagan wood inside his casket.

What gets me most annoyed is that the Cheneys of the world are going to call it french fried nuance when someone makes the rational suggestion that fighting terror does not necessarily = building the biggest military. For instance, spending large amounts of money on inspecting container ships and securing nuclear materials in russia certainly doesn't feel as tough as designing a new stealth bomber or building a (working) anti-ballistic missile system, but I think many people would agree that the former pair are more likely to increase our security in this new age of warfare. But in this age of sound bite politics I'm sure the spin would be "Why do you oppose protecting us from nuclear missiles? Don't you know how many madmen there are out there?"

In other news, turns out there were more NG records for Bush after all.* Glad the AP filed that third lawsuit to get them. Of course none of them are from the five categories of records that the Guard is supposed to keep in the event of a gap in service like Bush had in 72-73, but I'm sure they'll come out after a few more lawsuits.

* Sorry if the board already went into this. Don't have time to play catchup...

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
If we elect Kerry, our chances of getting hit go up.

How so? Explain. Tell me what Bush is currently doing that is so great. Besides fucking around in Iraq.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think it was. I was merely explaining what makes his statement correct. If we elect Kerry, our chances of getting hit go up.

I think what Cheney should have said is that Kerrey's judgment on national defense issues has been consistently wrong in the past (as evidenced by the laundry list of weapons programs he vetoed, his projections regarding our pullout of VN, his Central American policies, etc.), and therefore his ideas as to the best way to fight terrorism (i.e., repeal of the Bush Doctrine) are also wrong and will make us less safe.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
How so? Explain. Tell me what Bush is currently doing that is so great. Besides fucking around in Iraq.

According to bilmore:

• If there is more of a hope that terrorism will lead to desired results, there is a greater incentive to hit us hard.

See, because Kerry is a wuss, and is more likely to "pull a Spain" if the US is attacked, that means that a terrorist attack is more likely under Kerry. Because Bush is so resolute, and therefore won't "pull a Spain," we are safe* from terror if he is re-elected because the terrorists know that he won't flip-flop. QED.

*Fine. "Safer."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
How so? Explain. Tell me what Bush is currently doing that is so great. Besides fucking around in Iraq.

Iraq=flypaper.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Not Bob
According to bilmore:

• If there is more of a hope that terrorism will lead to desired results, there is a greater incentive to hit us hard.

See, because Kerry is a wuss, and is more likely to "pull a Spain" if the US is attacked, that means that a terrorist attack is more likely under Kerry. Because Bush is so resolute, and therefore won't "pull a Spain," we are safe* from terror if he is re-elected because the terrorists know that he won't flip-flop. QED.

*Fine. "Safer."

Idea:

First, the truly American way is not to do things ourselves, but rather to pay other people to do things for us. Consequently, since Russia now seems to want to preemptively go after terrorists, we should secretly fund them. Russia then goes apeshit on radical Islam. This refocuses all terrorism on Moscow, thus making the US safer.

Next, we stage a boxing match pitting our great heavyweight against Russia's. They fight in Moscow, the American wins over the Russian crowd, and terrorism ends as we know it.