SpeedRacer 1 #1 September 27, 2004 Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinal. Vote For A Man, Not A Puppet Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's reelection, they are really voting for the architects of war ---Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers. I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory. It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently. John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts. But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be. People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush. Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice. It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing. Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian. It's no wonder that the Justice Department has convicted a few Arab-Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the president will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration? This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world due to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration. Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace. I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it. Go to Kerry's Web site (www.johnkerry.com) and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe. Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, rides motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,545 #2 September 27, 2004 Well, Bush is about as well-educated as Kerry -- he does have that MBA, and while might have gotten in on the family-assistance program, and have gotten out with C's, he wouldn't have gotten those without completing the work. That said, otherwise, I find Bush to be about as scary as Reese does, for many of the same reasons. There aren't a lot of people I'd vote AGAINST, but he's definitely one of them. Tom Delay is another -- that's only relevant because I get to. Again. Wendy W. Edited to add: I think he's much scarier as president than he was as Governor. Governor of Texas isn't a particularly powerful position, but it does require that you be able to articulate a platform and speak for it. While I didn't necessarily agree with his platform, he did those things. But I really think he's sold himself to the neocons in a way that was not in the least apparent when he was elected President. And President of the US is far too powerful a position to say "ha ha fooled you!" about ideology. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #3 September 27, 2004 I agree Bush is scary for the same reasons. But I think Kerry is no better than a see-sawing front man as well. Neither truly has a strong stance on anything plus the intelligence to back it up. Can I vote for Nader? Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #4 September 27, 2004 So what's new? Some of use have been saying the same thing for 4 years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #5 September 27, 2004 Why is Charley Reese someone to listen to? Because he has a journalism degree? Because he is a superior intellectual. All I get out of his column is that he is another member of the media who hates Bush. QuoteBesides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, rides motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Are you saying Josef Stalin would make a better president that Bush? According to Kerry's own story, he murdered a wounded enemy combatant. There is a huge difference! QuoteKilling people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions. How so? Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #6 September 27, 2004 QuoteWhy is Charley Reese someone to listen to? Because he has a journalism degree? Because he is a superior intellectual. All I get out of his column is that he is another member of the media who hates Bush. QuoteBesides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, rides motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Are you saying Josef Stalin would make a better president that Bush? According to Kerry's own story, he murdered a wounded enemy combatant. There is a huge difference! QuoteKilling people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions. How so? I hadn't though of "anyone but Bush" that way before, but given that Josef Stalin is long dead, I would have to say that right now he would make a better president than Bush. At least he won't be able to lie and take us to war for bogus reasons.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #7 September 27, 2004 QuoteTake away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Gore thought the same way...Gore looked stupid at the debates. QuoteJohn Kerry is at least an educated man Uh, Bush has an MBA. They both graduated from Yale. How is that Un-educated? Who would you rather run your company, a Lawyer, or a guy with an MBA? QuoteIt's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country I hear ya...Insut your audience..That always gets you support QuoteKerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts. Kerry's not being able to decide on a course of action, his snobbish ways, and his voting record is what will lose him the election. QuoteBesides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, rides motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. Well if having hobbies is the way to vote, Bardnik should win. I think a guy that has a ranch might be fun...He knows how to use a gun, and what type to use for what game. Plus his Dad like skydiving. Write Poetry and speaks French? Uh thats about the dumbest reason to vote for someone....Saddam wrote books, he was a bad leader. Besides Bush was a Jet pilot...Pilots are cool. QuoteIt would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions Well Kerry shot one man in the back...I'd rather have a guy that didn't get his jollies by comiting war crimes as CiC."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #8 September 27, 2004 QuoteWhy is Charley Reese someone to listen to? Because he has a journalism degree? Because he is a superior intellectual. All I get out of his column is that he is another member of the media who hates Bush. well, the difference is, most of the Bush-hating columnists are liberal Democrats. Reese is a conservative. (go to Orlando Sentinel & read his other columns) I think there are at least some conservatives out there who have misgivings about the neo-cons. A few months ago I posted a column by Pat Buchanan that also expressed reservations about the Bush administration's foreign policy (but I don't think Buchanan is going so far as to vote for Kerry) Conservatives have traditionally wanted a smaller, less intrusive, and more frugal government, and value such things as traditional values, protecting borders & American trade, etc. The neo-cons have a different agenda: they basically want world domination. They seem to want to turn America into the Roman Empire. And evidently at least some traditional conservatives have reservations about this path. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #9 September 27, 2004 >Can I vote for Nader? Why not vote for Badnarik? He's a skydiver and he's a good guy. Sure, he's a fourth-party candidate, but why not vote for someone who you actually trust? (Well, I trust him at least 'cause I've traded emails with him back when he was just a skydiver.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 September 27, 2004 Quote QuoteBesides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, rides motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. Well if having hobbies is the way to vote, Bardnik should win. I think a guy that has a ranch might be fun...He knows how to use a gun, and what type to use for what game. Plus his Dad like skydiving. From a hobby perspective, Bush wouldn't be left in the dust either. Both he and his dad have a pretty good background too, even if it's not being as obviously promoted as Kerry's has been. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #11 September 27, 2004 Care to explain what a neo-con is?--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #12 September 27, 2004 Care to explain what a neo-con is Neo-Konservative (that's German dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #13 September 28, 2004 QuoteCare to explain what a neo-con is? Neoconservatives… Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower Share unwavering support for Israel Support American unilateral action Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security Promote the development of an American empire Equate American power with the potential for world peace Seek to democratize the Arab world Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan Find out if you're a neo-con here. [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #14 September 28, 2004 Wrong again. You gave the liberals definition and not the actual definition. According to Websters: Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv Function: noun : a former liberal espousing political conservatism - neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun - neoconservative adjective Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,545 #15 September 28, 2004 clicky Wendy W. edited to add judgement axes. Note they make it very clear that the results are not scientific. Neocon quiz results Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective. Isolationist The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets. Isolationists… Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements Believe the US should not act as a global cop Support trade practices that protect American workers Oppose liberal immigration Oppose American imperialism Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan Liberal Liberals… Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies. Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises Oppose American imperialism Support international law, alliances, and agreements Encourage US participation in the UN Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter Realist Realists… Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations Believe strong alliances are important to US interests Weigh the political costs of foreign action Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell Neoconservative Neoconservatives… Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower Share unwavering support for Israel Support American unilateral action Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security Promote the development of an American empire Equate American power with the potential for world peace Seek to democratize the Arab world Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt Modern neoconservative: President Ronald ReaganThere is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #16 September 28, 2004 I gave a description, not a definition. Please tell me what "espousing political conservatism" means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #17 September 28, 2004 And it was wrong! Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 September 28, 2004 Please give me tell me what the newo-con positions are on those issues that I listed. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Care to point out how I'm wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #19 September 28, 2004 a former liberal espousing political conservatism is pretty clear Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #20 September 28, 2004 Quotea former liberal espousing political conservatism is pretty clear No, it's not. What does espousing political conservatism mean? (Hint....it's the list i originally presented that you labeled as wrong). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,545 #21 September 28, 2004 And you're saying that Rumsfeld, Cheney and their friends are, um, former liberals? By what standard? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,545 #22 September 28, 2004 Wikipedia is another source that takes into account the evolution and current perception of highly-charged terms like neoconservative. Here's the Wikipedia entry. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #23 September 28, 2004 "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less." Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
