Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I believe what he said the other day during the "John and John Show" was the following:

• As you know, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and also a leader in fighting bioterrorism and understanding the threats we face, he shares my unshakable commitment to having a military that is second to nobody in the world but also to restoring old and rebuilding new alliances that make America stronger.

Which says Kerry believes two things:

1) Our military can be downsized so long as it isn't smaller than the standing army of that other superpower, Belgium.

2) France and Germany should have a veto over our foreign interests.

Your article shows he wants to punt the security aspect to Nato (to which France already said no) - and this flies in the face of his "alliances first" stand.

(1) and (2) don't follow from what he said, but I can see why you'd rather attack Kerry for these imaginary positions of yours than for what he's actually saying.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
That fucking waffler -- he's at it again. Slave, time to post some t-shirts or bumper stickers.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Are you high? Do you realize how fvcking ignorant the american populace is? Their main source of info, after MonsterTRuckRealityM&ETV is the left wing media. Frankly, I think the hoipolloi of the unwashed masses would be better served tuning the dial to aljizzerra.com.

(1) To club: I thought I and other people on this board, all of whom are acknowledging that there is a threat of a terror attack, WERE the far left.

(2) to Penske: oh right, I forgot, but aren't you one of the ones who relies on these people to continue thinking there are WMDs in Iraq and that there was a meaningful, threatening link between the WTC destruction (or even just al Quada in general) and Iraq? You can choose to rely on the opinions/knowledge of the general public, OR you can shit on them. But you have to pick.

(3) Burger, I assume that StdP means shut up, but it'd be nice if you could kind of elucidate a bit.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That fucking waffler -- he's at it again. Slave, time to post some t-shirts or bumper stickers.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You did stop using the parenthetical sign off because of me, though, right?

Nope

Sidd(I knew you were really Fluffy)Finch

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Please respond to this, please Ty:
Assume they can bring one in to order. Assume Bush is saying (it really is tough to fit inside your brain) get me one in July so I can sidetrack the Dem's convention. assume the Pakis bow to the pressure, go further than they otherwise would and grab one late July, and they wouldn't have if they didn't have the pressure. If the above is true, I'm okay with it bacause we've caught a guy we otherwise wouldn't.

The disgusting thing is the request they made. I not crying for the HVT they bring in, but if this pressure can get it done in late July, then they didn't have to wait for the Democratic National Convention to nail these people.

But the fact is that they probably can't just go grab one, so the story is silly, and your believing it true means that you believe the US intelligence service is really naive.[/i]

The Pakistanis may not be able to nail the targets, or may not want to do what it takes. But that would change the fact that the White House was asking. And it's the White House that's implicated here, not our "intelligence service."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Pakistanis may not be able to nail the targets, or may not want to do what it takes. But that would change the fact that the White House was asking. And it's the White House that's implicated here, not our "intelligence service."

Okay, so perhaps the White House is naive, because I doubt very much they could catch any of these guys on order.

You alternatively believe the WH realizes the Paki's could catch them in the next few weeks, but won't unless we give them motivation. So Bush says "by late July" either because of the Dem Convention, or because he needs a fake deadline to get these guys to move. That's okay isn't it, because we otherwise wouldn't catch them.

Or 3. The story is horseshit.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
(1) and (2) don't follow from what he said, but I can see why you'd rather attack Kerry for these imaginary positions of yours than for what he's actually saying.

1) Sure it does. Saying you "believe" that the US should have a mighty military is a waste of fucking air. Thanks for the tough words, Johnny.

2) He has consistently stated - for once - that coalitions are important above all. Since France has already vetoed any NATO involvement - and since France is one of these important nations we need on our side - then clearly he is lying and has no intention of pushing the NATO issue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Okay, so perhaps the White House is naive, because I doubt very much they could catch any of these guys on order.

You alternatively believe the WH realizes the Paki's could catch them in the next few weeks, but won't unless we give them motivation. So Bush says "by late July" either because of the Dem Convention, or because he needs a fake deadline to get these guys to move. That's okay isn't it, because we otherwise wouldn't catch them.

That's not what the story says. But keep rewriting it to make it less believable.

Or 3. The story is horseshit.

As we're discovering in Iraq, the amazing propensity of conservatives to ignore inconvenient facts doesn't work out so well in the long run.

[ltl/fb]

I really like it much better on the FB, where it's more explicitly about sex.

And I always thought males were supposed to be more direct about this stuff. Maybe this is more like foreplay, or when the elk or deer or whatever are running at each other smashing their horns/heads into each other, then getting up, shaking off, and doing it again.

[the Spartan]

What me flipflop?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The president now sets the timing for votes in congress? What Article of the Constitution is that in?

Good one. I can really see Tom DeLay saying, "I'm sorry, Mr. President, despite the fact that we're in the same party and you make a strong case that scheduling this vote will help our party in the elections, I just don't think it would be constitutional to let you dictate when a matter gets called to the floor for a vote."

He certainly co-opted DHS, but I don't see how DHS is politicizing the war.

So you missed all the clips of Bush stumping in contested congressional districts in '02 and giving the sam speech over and over about how the Dems were against homeland security? This of course was after Dems had advanced the DHS idea in the first place and were focusing their opposition to Bush's bill on the provisions stripping civil service designations for DHS workers.* To say under those circumstances that the Dems were "against homeland security" is to me the epitome of politicizing the war on terror.

* I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with having some of the DHS workers be non-civil service, but that's a separate argument.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
What me flipflop?

Bush flipflops:

• Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
  
• Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
  
• Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
  
• Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
  
• Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
  
• Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
  
• Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits.
  
• Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
  
• Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
  
• Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
  
• Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will.
  
• Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
  
• Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
  
• Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
  
• Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

That took Google and 12 seconds. Imagine what I could do with more time.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bush flipflops:

311 words

Word to the wise (and time efficient), a .gif image is worth a 1000 words. Thanks for playin though.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
(1) To club: I thought I and other people on this board, all of whom are acknowledging that there is a threat of a terror attack, WERE the far left.

Some are.