|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
DNC Swing and a Miss
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: 9:35
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc77.htm
The story broke earlier democraticunderground.com:
http://www.democraticunderground.co...2x821450#821467
Basically, the DNC got ahold of this and are planning to use it against Bush as if he never served in the Air Force. But he did. The Air National Guard is part of the Air Force. Just like a Ranger is part of the Army.
Democrats have so many things to attack Bush about and they choose this 
Posted by: SKYHN
Why not? The Republicans attack Kerry's military records/service constantly.
Anyone see those purple heart bandaides that people were wearing at the RNC? Thats the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen. That disrespects everyone who ever earned a purple heart durring their military service.
Posted by: 9:35
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SKYHN
Why not? The Republicans attack Kerry's military records/service constantly.
Anyone see those purple heart bandaides that people were wearing at the RNC? Thats the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen. That disrespects everyone who ever earned a purple heart durring their military service.
|
The Swift Boat stuff has been discredited several times. The people who wrote the book didn't serve on the same boat as Kerry. How wide this fact has circulated is irrevelant; republicans will still use it and democrats will argue it.
The difference here is that, while republicans resort to these things because Bush is very weak on certain issues, the democrats have blatently lied on something so trivial compared to everything else they could attack. Thats the problem - the democrats are picking really really stupid fights and are starting to look really foolish.
Posted by: 9:35
Let me explain this a little better:
When Kerry's service gets attacked, republicans hate Kerry a little more, democrats hare republicans a little more, and swing voters dont care, and the republicans succeed in distracting the public away from the issues that hurt them. When Bush's service gets attacked, democrats hate Bush a little more, republicans hate democrats a little more, and swing voters don't care, and the democrats distract the public away from the issues that hurt republicans, which hurts the democrats a LOT right now. In short, sidetracking the real issues can only help the republicans and hurt the democrats, since our government is marketed to the public so goddamn well.
Posted by: redwench
im tired of the military crap. kerry served, period. bush served, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, period. im much more interested in how badly each one of them is going to screw up the country.
Posted by: SKYHN
Or how badly they will CONTINUE to screw up the country 
Does anyone not remember when bush attacked McCains military service when they were head to head?
Posted by: elhior_manwe
The DNC is so confused right now...as well as Kerry's campaign managers. They should not only attack Bush about his "service" record but everything else the Republicans are offering take your pick foriegn or domestic, there are so many. But Kerry seems to not know what to do and keeps stumbling over what he actually thinks, that it makes me believe he doesn't even know.
Abortion rights
Manipulation of intelligence
Jobs
Education
Afghanistan
Osama
Federal Reserve
Trade Policy
Economic redistribution
Role of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO
Crime, Punishment, Prison population, war on drugs
Corporate welfare
Forest Policy
The destruction of small framers and ranchers
Israel
Cuba
China
North Korea.........etc.
There are so many things we could be discussing but they decide to argue over what happened 30 years ago? This is how they like it, I think, it protects them by not making them actually say anything that matters.
Posted by: SKYHN
But they have to respond, they cant just 'ignore' the attacks on military records, etc. And I do believe the PRESS started this whole military records thing, not the DNC or the RNC. Their also the ones running 10000 stories on it per day keeping it as the top issue of the campaign.
I watched an MTV thing with Kerry where he answered questions about various things. Not once was the current issue of military records brought up. His military service was brought up, but only as talking about his background story of how he got into politics. There was no "Dubya didnt serve" or "Kerry wasnt there".
Posted by: redwench
destruction of small farmers and ranchers?
those have been decreasing since the industrial revolution, i dont think theres much to be done about it at this point. assuming its even desirable to interfere, which is questionable.
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
|
those have been decreasing since the industrial revolution, i dont think theres much to be done about it at this point. assuming its even desirable to interfere, which is questionable.
|
Agreed
Posted by: Canis Lupus
useless posts removed... feel free to continue with the insights and intellectual discourses 
Posted by: Ocean
being gramtically incorrect, yet comprehensible, is an american strength. we can infer what is meant. many other languages dont have that flexability. and i personally despise people who are linguistically anal. the point of language is to communicate, not to follow rules of grammar.
make a counter point on the idea, not the lack of anal retentive obsessive thouroughness with which it is said.
Posted by: Ocean
appearently the dnc strategy is to give up on the swing voters (because presumably they already have decided) and just to energize the base into voting.
Posted by: Atlas4
A base that is very large, just nonenergrized. The black voters could change this in an instant, but they don't. Kerry really needs to respond to the black, asian, and other minority voters more. Of course, there's the rumors that the GOP is going into black neighborhoods telling that if you vote, they can arrest you for unpaid parking tickets and the such, which I think is just racist bullhockey. I'm sick of the Dems blaming the GOP for the lack of interest in the black community. If only they'd try for one second. The Dems just assume they have all the votes that they need, and it's true that we take the black vote for granted.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
They take all there core for granted not like the republicans who "preach" to there core base. Anyone that is even moderately left has to feel unrepresented.
Posted by: redwench
eh, im not interested in a politician "preaching" to my interests. i want one that will say straight out what his/her stances are on significant issues. i dont need pandering to because of my race/gender/religion/occupation etc. thats not only an insult to me, but thats how we get government pork. id rather hear an unpleasant truth, like the war on terror is unwinnable, than be spoon fed some pablum designed to make me feel warm and fuzzy about a candidate.
Posted by: IceBreaker
According to this article the Democrats recently took to attacking Bush over the assault gun ban, decrying its expiration as a threat to national security (...) – in my opinion, this is definitely not a good idea as it will likely backfire upon them by warding off even those democrat voters who may fear for their civil liberties. Kerry himself is probably aware of that as, trying to reassure his supporters, he stated that the ban did not compromise the 2nd amendment. That’s a rather thin line he’s treading. Too thin, perhaps. Bad enough as things are, if Kerry continues on this trend I doubt the rift between the scores will narrow anytime soon ..
Of all the issues that the Bush administration has been sidestepping – and successfully, as the scores would suggest - which of these would be most likely to deliver the fatal blow to the conservatives:
> The economy? The conservatives no doubt feel uneasy when attacked on this issue, however it is obvious that only those affected by the failing economy will hold any resentment toward the current government – namely, the jobless & those living below the poverty threshold.
> Health care? Same as above, as those able to afford private insurance may not consider this a foremost priority..
> Abortions rights? An eternal bone of contention, these have been on a downward slide lately but alas, only half the population – at most - might feel concerned ;-)
> The environment? A noble cause, and definitely not one of Bush’s crowning achievements - but then again many voters may only have a nebulous idea of its importance in their daily lives, and the long term implications of its neglect. Hell, some could even see in global warming a chance for them to go surfing in winter where it was hitherto not possible
> Civil Liberties – now THERE's something worthwhile considering if the Democrats really wish to turn the tide, since the entire civilian population should feel concerned – roughly 300 million? - from the most committed left-winged democrats right down to the staunchest right-winged zealots. For who is the citizen who would not value his or her own rights?
Homeland Security Act & Patriot Act are a direct threat to democracy, paving the way to a authoritarian state…
…YET strangely enough, the “Democrats” haven’t seized upon that one. Go figure..
Posted by: redwench
of course not, they all voted for it.......
itll be the economy. americans dont really care about the environment, unless its their backyard. civil liberties ditto. abortion wont do it, theres nothing new on the horizon. health care ditto, not much new going on.
the economy, well, a lot of people are taking pay cuts, loosing jobs, getting only crappy ones, etc. better yet, almost everyone that isnt affected directly knows someone that is. and with no real improvement in the economy, and with massive troop mobilization yet, people are getting rather exasperated. kyoto might not make you vote bush out, but your unemployed son/daughter and family leeching off you or living with you will if you think theres even a shot at the other candidate being helpful.
so, heres hoping the economy gets worse
Posted by: marioze53
rofl... 9:35, I pray you would accept my sincerest apology for infringing upon your thread (snickers). Not offering anything useful to the conversation eh? Well let me try it again. Here goes...
In response to Ice (and agreement with Red) there is no doubt that the democrats will focus their attack on President Bush's economic policies. It makes sense since Bush is caught in the midst of a Catch 22. In 2000, the promised tax cut arguably got him into office. Yet now hes faced with a horrible economic situation, military coalitions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and no healthcare plan to speak of. Whats he to do? Does he continue with an economic plan that put him in the oval office or does he adjust his policies in response to the situations at hand? Doing nothing portrays him as a stubborn mule, reluctant to change in a time of needed reform. However, changing not only alienates the party that put him into office but makes him appear indecisive. IMO, removing the tax cut would help the economy to its feet and provide some of the necessary funding for paying off the war in Iraq (as well as the national debt). Yet, at the same time, I cant help but admire the guy for sticking to his guns.
Which brings me to Kerry. Ill put it this way; If John Kerry is incapable of defeating Bush (who Im sure we are agreed is an idiot), is he really the man for the job? If he cant win against stupid, how will he fair against a competant Republican candidate (say John McCain or Colin Powell)?I mean, come on people! Its Bush! How hard can it be?
Posted by: redwench
mostly standard non-aggravating inconclusive statements by the candidates, but a couple of direct answers by some miracle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3660276.stm
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
If he cant win against stupid, how will he fair against a competant Republican candidate (say John McCain or Colin Powell)?I mean, come on people! Its Bush! How hard can it be?
|
You have a very big misunderstanding about competency's role in this election.
Every president over the past 40 years has had a team of political strategists that take a fine comb over every issue and sugarcoat it as best as possible. They'll do this through wording ("Operation Iraqi Freedom," for example; who's gonna oppose Iraqi Freedom?), slanted-yet-not-false facts (Bush's hypothetical waitress/lawyer tax cut comparison) and imagery (juxtapositioning Bush's head with the four heads on Mount Rushmore for press photos duing a South Dakota speech, or the notorious "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln). These tactics have steadily grown over those years, but no president has utilized it in every single corner of their administration like Bush has. And they're very, very good at it.
When an administration powerhouse like this one can market it's policies so well to the public, it almost doesn't matter how negative or positive the policy stands in the first place. Bush sold us the war through Weapons of Mass Destruction. If we found them, we would have praised Bush for being so smart and brave to take us into the war. Instead, we didn't find WMDs, but people still cheered on Bush for "preventing an awful, awful man from ever obtaining WMDs."
As long as Bush and his administration can effectively market their policies to a majority of the public, they'll win in a breeze. It doesn't matter how many people say "oh bush is so dumb and kerry should win because bush is such a dummy!" when he can spin words to gain favor as good as he does.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
According to this article the Democrats recently took to attacking Bush over the assault gun ban, decrying its expiration as a threat to national security (...) – in my opinion, this is definitely not a good idea as it will likely backfire upon them by warding off even those democrat voters who may fear for their civil liberties. Kerry himself is probably aware of that as, trying to reassure his supporters, he stated that the ban did not compromise the 2nd amendment. That’s a rather thin line he’s treading. Too thin, perhaps. Bad enough as things are, if Kerry continues on this trend I doubt the rift between the scores will narrow anytime soon .. YET strangely enough, the “Democrats” haven’t seized upon that one. Go figure.. |
Hmm the democrats might lose nra vote?
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
|
When an administration powerhouse like this one can market it's policies so well to the public, it almost doesn't matter how negative or positive the policy stands in the first place. Bush sold us the war through Weapons of Mass Destruction. If we found them, we would have praised Bush for being so smart and brave to take us into the war. Instead, we didn't find WMDs, but people still cheered on Bush for "preventing an awful, awful man from ever obtaining WMDs."
|
Its not necessarily who has the best political advisors, its a matter of pride. The United States has been used to being right for a while. To even suggest that we made a terrible mistake abroad implies that we could be, God forbid, wrong for a change. Bush probably made a mistake sending us into Iraq, that is to say we went for the wrong reasons (assuming it wasnt a cover to begin with). But since we as a country refuse to be wrong, we invent alternative, yet moral and logical reasons for going to war ("Saddam was a bad man", "He massacred 300,000 Kurds", etc.). No doubt Bushes advisors know this is true and will exploit our pride. Is that to say that theyre directly responsible? I dont think so. If the country is nieve enough to think that were right all the time, then we deserve what we get.
The beautiful thing about democracy though, is that not just one man can be blamed for our problems. After all, we did put the guy in office and are therefore entitled to whatever policies he introduces. That doesnt mean that Kerry will win. Removing the incumbent from office would ultimately show that we are willing to change, more liberal; but then again were too proud as a country.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Very excellent point, mario ... I think that's one of the main reasons why many people still believe Bush should stay in office - they refuse to believe that American can EVER be on the wrong side, and instead of trying to correct it, they create alibis, make excuses, or compare ourselves with allegedly inferior countries...
It's all a matter of EGO ... if Bush wins these upcoming elections, it just makes you realize how arrogant and close-minded America has become... more than it currently is...
Posted by: redwench
become?
*ahem*
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
It's all a matter of EGO ... if Bush wins these upcoming elections, it just makes you realize how arrogant and close-minded America has become... more than it currently is...
|
At this point in time, most countries don't hate Americans, they just hate Bush. A second term for Bush will show that the American public regards his job in Iraq as acceptable. I think we'll see a lot of anti-American feelings overseas is Bush has four more years, which of course will be dismissed on our side as jealousy.
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
|
At this point in time, most countries don't hate Americans, they just hate Bush.
|
Im not so sure about that... Over the past 60 years we have established ourselves as the predominate world power. Lets face it, America is basically the new Rome. The world arena is much like the sports world; everyone loves the underdog. It doesnt necessarily matter what Alqueda stands for or who is right in the war on terror. As long as the United States has the ability to destroy a country (like Iraq or Afghanistan) with relative ease and few casualties, we will always be despised. As long as we squander our blessings and waste our money on needless things (i.e. too many clothes, new cars, etc.) while there are others who need it far more than we do, people are going to hate us. And why shouldnt they? I realize Im the lone republican voice in this thread, but ultimately were all trying to conserve or preserve our American lifestyle. IMO, if we were outsiders looking at this blessed country, I think we would hate us too.
Posted by: Ocean
that would make sense if you ignore anti-america hatredover the past 6 decades and especially just after 9-11
when im in europe, i dont dare mention i am an american. its used to be something to be proud of.
iraq war changed the global sentimate towards america from what it was after 9-11.
that is the bush administration's fault exclussively. there have been hundreds of reports (including many of the bush administration) that say iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. though over 80% of the war's supporters believe saddam had something to do with the attacks. when the war started, over %50 of americans didnt know the difference (wtf omg!!?!?) between saddam hussein and osama bin ladden. (pollers asked questions like who is the leader of al qaeda, etc).
just last week, rumsfeld repeatedly reffered to osama as hussein.
the bush administration is at the least, extremely incapable of educating americans of who the enemy truly is.
the 200 billion dollars and 1000 dead and 7000 injured could have been spent in ways that actually would have made america safer.
the only way to win the war on terror, is to make sure we kill more terrorists than we produce. every day iraqi citizens die. is another week of coverage on al jazeera, and 1000 more terrorists are born. the war on terrorism essentially boils down to a public relations campaign for america in the muslim world. the iraqi freedom opperation is horrible PR for america, partly due to america's (almost) monopoly on the military and decisions. organizations in which the muslim world considers neutral are who need to oversee the iraqi reconstruction.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Im not so sure about that... Over the past 60 years we have established ourselves as the predominate world power. Lets face it, America is basically the new Rome. The world arena is much like the sports world; everyone loves the underdog. It doesnt necessarily matter what Alqueda stands for or who is right in the war on terror. As long as the United States has the ability to destroy a country (like Iraq or Afghanistan) with relative ease and few casualties, we will always be despised. As long as we squander our blessings and waste our money on needless things (i.e. too many clothes, new cars, etc.) while there are others who need it far more than we do, people are going to hate us. And why shouldnt they? I realize Im the lone republican voice in this thread, but ultimately were all trying to conserve or preserve our American lifestyle. IMO, if we were outsiders looking at this blessed country, I think we would hate us too.
|
At this point in time, I said.
This is post 9/11, you know, three years after we gained the support of dozens of countries that we didn't before. Surely that had something to do with the whole "with us or against us" attitude, but we had the support nonetheless. Foriegners aren't upset at us or at least aren't as upset as they will be if Bush if re-elected.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocean
the 200 billion dollars and 1000 dead and 7000 injured could have been spent in ways that actually would have made america safer.
|
You're only counting the American casualties.
Posted by: Ocean
yes, true. i was thinking that 10000 enemies and 4000 civilians did not spend their lives making america safer.
however, their deaths did ultimately help the production of terrorists.
hmm, it seems now that anyone who is willing to fight america is called a terrorist.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocean
the only way to win the war on terror, is to make sure we kill more terrorists
|
1. you cant win a war on an emotion
2. even if you could, killing "terrorists" is hardly going to be effective.
you lessen, although not eliminate, terrorism the same way you do with any other undesirable activity. education and public pressure, plus reducing the physical factors of course.
Posted by: Ocean
eh, i was using the bush name for what the war is. i wasnt meaning it literally. when they say it do they mean it literally? i always though thats just the name they give to the war against all the terrorists.
and by killing, bad choice of words on my part. i dont know the word that would work with what i was thinking. converting, eliminating, handicapping, killing; something that would work for all of those.
and expanding upon my whole good american pr thing. we should be extremely charitable to palistenians and other muslims who need help. food, medacine, housing, etc. i think part of the reason more and more are willing to die so easily is because they have less and less to live for. and when their lives are miserable they look for religious guidance, and the jihadists know that and use it in their quest to satisfy their messiah complexes.
and i lost my train of though cause i had a 30 min issue between the rest of this post and this sentence
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocean
yes, true. i was thinking that 10000 enemies and 4000 civilians did not spend their lives making america safer.
|
Now you're only counting American and Iraqi casualties, one of which doesn't fit this scenario
Posted by: Ocean
ok, im at a loss to see what significant impact on americas safety all the other casualties had other than what i said.
Posted by: 9:35
How can I explain this. 1000 dead and 7000 injured did not make America safer. Coalition casualties did not make America safer. Both are true because in the event of a war with a threatening nation, we have less of our own troops and less of our allies. Killing Iraqi citizens certainly did not make America safer because they tend to get a little angry at the people killing them. High level republicans like to compare our Iraqi citizen death toll (which isn't officially tracked by this administration) with the number of "innocent Iraqi citizens" that a "brutal dictator" gassed. Do you see where I'm going here? A great number a things on both the American side and other sides could have been used in much better ways to make America safer.
Posted by: redwench
also, it should be obvious to anyone that comes close to understanding saddam hussein that there really were not any significant number of terrorists in iraq, and they definitely were not organized, while he was in power. we have a far worse problem now than we did 3 years ago, at significant cost.
Posted by: Ocean
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
How can I explain this. 1000 dead and 7000 injured did not make America safer. Coalition casualties did not make America safer. Both are true because in the event of a war with a threatening nation, we have less of our own troops and less of our allies. Killing Iraqi citizens certainly did not make America safer because they tend to get a little angry at the people killing them. High level republicans like to compare our Iraqi citizen death toll (which isn't officially tracked by this administration) with the number of "innocent Iraqi citizens" that a "brutal dictator" gassed. Do you see where I'm going here? A great number a things on both the American side and other sides could have been used in much better ways to make America safer.
|
no, not at all, you just repeated what i said the first time you quoted me. im just still trying to ascertain what was wrong with me only mentioning the american casualties when i was summerizing the cost to america and that it didnt make america safer.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocean
no, not at all, you just repeated what i said the first time you quoted me. im just still trying to ascertain what was wrong with me only mentioning the american casualties when i was summerizing the cost to america and that it didnt make america safer.
|
oh, i didn't mean that as a jab on you; you wern't wrong, i was just clarifying.
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
|
redwench also, it should be obvious to anyone that comes close to understanding saddam hussein that there really were not any significant number of terrorists in iraq, and they definitely were not organized, while he was in power. we have a far worse problem now than we did 3 years ago, at significant cost.
|
What exactly is a terrorist? Are we using an adjusted definition? Or are we extracting it from the root word? IMO a terrorist is simply defined as one who uses fear (or terror rather) to establish control. In my book, that definition puts Saddam Hussein up with the likes of Stahlin or Hitler. Truth be told, we did remove a TERRORIST by going into Iraq. However, it seems that the only terrorists that matter (or that are ever really called terrorists to begin with) are those tied directly to Alqueda. Maybe thats why Bush is so unpopular with the war in Iraq because he never presented a clear cut definition of the word terrorist.
Posted by: marioze53
sorry i screwed up the quote
Posted by: redwench
pretty much by definition, you cant call the dictator, or whatever the ruling group is, a terrorist. i mean, you cant say hitler was a terrorist, although he certainly inspired quite a bit. lots of nouns can be used to describe the man, but thats not one of them. for one thing, a terrorist has to operate outside of the normal system and laws. they also need to be using their activities for the promotion of some change, otherwise theyre just a wacko.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Yes - terrorists operate outside the the frame of the law. Dictators on the other hand MAKE it the law. Difficult to say which is worse. Perhaps those that are dictators are the same type of people who, in a different context and without the POWER & opportunity, would resort to terrorism & serial killing - and vice-versa...
Posted by: redwench
oh, id say the dictator is worse if doing equal things. but thats rare. and i think it would be a rare terrorist that could be a ruler. being dictator is hard work, and actually requires interpersonal skills, a brain, and other stuff besides ruthlessness. someone like bin laden might be able to do it, but hes a rare breed indeed 
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
being dictator is hard work, and actually requires interpersonal skills, a brain, and other stuff besides ruthlessness.
|
not necessarily - but it does require advisers & henchmen with skills & a brain
And leaving aside you-know-who, don't forget that Stalin himself was not exactly a luminary (anecdote: he didn't even know that the Netherlands & Holland were one, and none in his clique were bold enough to tell him) and if we delve back back even further, say about 2 millenia, emperor Tiberius was a sadistic paranoid with only one thing in his tiny mind: fear of death & self-preservation, and Caligula was a mental case who had his favourite horse appointed consul of Rome (...)
As for TrashBin Laden being a "rare breed", so much the better...
...though I wouldn't be so sure about that either: with 17 kids & about 50 siblings, his lineage seems prolific enough to warrant a hunting season specially dedicated to them, come to think of it http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...ble/inc_087.gif
Posted by: redwench
dont confuse ignorant and/or cuckoo with stupid. it doesnt take brains to blow yourself up, it does to run a country with an iron fist ^^
Posted by: IceBreaker
Ignorance with stupidity, no;
but complacency in ignorance, that is another matter ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
