Thursday, May 11, 2006

Especially for our Bush Fans

66 comments:

Jason H. Bowden said...

What reason do I have to vote Democrat again in 2008, or even in 2006 for that matter?

All I ever hear from Democrats is evasion, doublethink, and claims about how bad Bush is. What are *your* ideas?

Stardust said...

Both President Bush and Democrat John Kerry say they want to use diplomacy — although with different approaches — to prevent what could be a nightmare scenario for the United States: a nuclear-armed, hostile Islamic state in the volatile Middle East.

But the United States' ability to sound an international alarm on Iran has been damaged after much of its intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons programs proved to be wrong. And its credibility could be further hurt by suspicions that a Pentagon official passed secrets about Iran to Israel.

Bush had stated in 2004 that he does NOT advocate a pre-emptive strike on Iran. "The military option is always the last option for a president, not the first," Bush said in an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show.

However, Bush has had six long years to actually achieve progress...yet he has only used rhetoric which includes phrases like "workin' hard" and "we're makin' progress" without anyone actually seeing any great results.

I have told you what I think. Repeatedly. I think this is a precarious situation that has to be well-thought out and tried to be worked out via diplomatic measures...and we need more of the world in our corner for any military action to suceed.

Jason H. Bowden said...

I can tell you why I'm tempted to switch to the Republicans.

The Republicans aren't afraid to use force against totalitarian organizations. Democrats used be the same. However, almost all of them have moved away from this approach since 2005, partly because they've been pressured by their base. Now Democrats are saying they can keep us safe with talk alone, perhaps with some extra spending on port security.

I don't think that's going to cut it. Do you? Iran may be an immediate problem, but it also may be a problem Bush's successor has to deal with. I'm worried that a future Democrat administration would do things *your* way, leading to catastrophic results.

"I think this is a precarious situation that has to be well-thought out."

Republicans have thought this out well. Democrats have not. They think we should have more diplomacy with a suicidal fanatic who has renounced diplomacy. Moreover, they think we should have no airstrikes to destroy Iran's nuclear program until the Chinese guy at the U.N. raises his hand. What kind of "foreign policy" is this? You can see why I don't trust today's Democrats.

outofcontrol said...

If you did reasearch you would know that democratic ideas have been stonewalled in Congress by the republican majority. That is politics.
What are the plans??
Continued money and grants for education. Now that you have used yours who cares about the next person in line?
A strong military that is used judiciously.
Move to the periphery in Iraq and let the people decide what the course of their nation will be. It is obvious that the government will be like that of Iran. Is this what we have spent Billions on and thousands of lives for? Do you think that with Iran in the nuclear community that Iraq will not be next? Then all of the Axis of evil will have nuclear weapons. Use the knowledge that you have and come to conclusions that are reasonable.
Pay as you go, not spend and spend. Reaganomics did not work in the 80's it has not worked in the 2000's.
Energy independence in ten years.
Securing our borders and securing our ports.
Balance the budget.

I am sure that more ideas are out there. The real question should be " What is the republican agenda?"
Revoke Roe vs. Wade.
Eliminate taxes for the rich.
Lower taxes on corporations.
Encourage shipment of jobs to China.
Creationism instead of evolution.
Religion instead of science.
Reduction of the bill of rights.
Elimination of social security and Medicare.
I am sure that their agenda has many more minor points.

Stardust said...

How are airstrikes on Iran going to help Israel (who you are so concerned for) when Iran has missles ready to launch at Israel at the first sign of US attack?

Also, when has their been "catastrophic results" under Democratic leadership? During my 5 decades on this planet I have not experienced anything worse than Republican incompetency. I have not witnessed anything worse on our own soil under Republican leadership than what happened on September 11, 2001. I have not seen the economy as bad...not even the Reagan years were this bad. I have not seen gas prices soar to this extreme until now. I have not seen so many jobs lost to far-away lands. I have not seen such a stupid and inarticulate president.

outofcontrol said...

Stardust

You have seen it now.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

In a free market, private individuals and corporations set their prices, not the President. Contrary to what politicians say, is no such thing as "price gouging." Since you're a liberal who rejects the ideas of Karl Marx, you must agree with this.

Secondly, unemployment right now is at 4.7%. In 1982, unemployment was 9.7%. These statistics are easily found online.

Comparative advantage, an idea developed by David Ricardo, explains why free trade is beneficial to both parties.

Lastly, it is a fantasy to believe that Islamic supremacists will not attack us if we get rid of Bush. Bush will leave office in less than two years, and your ideas need to persuade me why I'd be better off under a Feingold or a Clark instead of a Giuliani or McCain.

Jason H. Bowden said...

ooc--

It is foolish to believe talk alone will keep us safe. Surrender is even worse. Murtha persuaded Clinton to surrender to Mohammed Farrah Aidid in 1993 in Somalia, and that inspired bin Laden and others to attack the Khobar Towers, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, and ultimately the World Trade Center. Stabbing Iraqi democrats in the back and letting terrorists run the place is the worst option available to us right now.

Thanks for making the new Democratic position on defense clear. I can't in good faith support this.

I may agree with the Democrats on other issues, but all of it is in vain if we give free reign to terrorist organizations and regimes to do what they want.

Stardust said...

Secondly, unemployment right now is at 4.7%. In 1982, unemployment was 9.7%. These statistics are easily found online.

Many people who were on the unemployment rolls are now off...their unemployment has run out and they are no longer counted...or are over working at Walfart or work for a temporary service like I do.

Stardust said...

Lastly, it is a fantasy to believe that Islamic supremacists will not attack us if we get rid of Bush.

I never said that Islamic supremacists would not attack us if we get rid of Bush. I said that Bush has shown he is incompetent in handling such an attack in the long term and during an immediate crisis.

JustinOther said...

Secondly, unemployment right now is at 4.7%. In 1982, unemployment was 9.7%. These statistics are easily found online.

What this does not say is that many people have exhausted their benefits. In other words, the unemployment rate only counts those receiving benefits. Those who used to receive benefits that have now gone past the limit are not counted. Compare the rate of job growth to the decrease in unemployment and you will see a discrepancy.

Also, on the issue of security...What I hear you saying is basically "the hell with diplomacy, just bomb them". Being the school bully does not work. I'm not saying don't use force ever...pacifism is a losing proposition also. There needs to be a balance and a "good" society and government will find that balance. The Bush administration policy is "screw you, we're in charge".

By the way, why can't Iran have nuclear weapons? We do. The Russians do, China does, India does. No one makes a fuss over them, but North Korea and Iran can't? I know, they've threatened us and Israel. The Indians threatened Pakistan (another of our allies) and we use diplomacy. North Korea has a megalomaniac leader (appropriately named Ill) who has threatened the US mainland, yet we haven't blown them up. Why not? Lets use the same rules for all of them. Anyone who threatens the US gets bombed. Period.

The problem is that we have spent all of our previous good relations with other countries as well as put ourselves so far into debt to get rid of a secular leader for lies. Yes, he needed to go. He was not an immediate threat and our government knew that. In the mean time, China owns over 60% of our debt (which keeps rising) and the value of the dollar continues to decay. One of these days China will sell off their holdings and put our economy into a tailspin the likes of which haven't been seen since the 20's.

The arrogance of this administration does nothing but frustrate me. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Kerry was up for the job either. The entire two party system is fraught with problems. There are better ways, of which I will not go into detail now. Suffice it to say there is the Republican party and the Republican light party (dems, of course). Progressives and liberals do not have representation in the democratic party, however it is the only one that could potentially get elected. How many independents are in congress?

Anyway, I'm getting off track and had to rant.

Now Democrats are saying they can keep us safe with talk alone, perhaps with some extra spending on port security.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. That is what Rush tells you. I have never heard one democrat say they would never use force. They DO say that it should not be the first option (as it was for Bush)...Yes, The Bush administration has been proven to have planned an attack on Iraq well before 9/11. Actually before Bush was even elected.

Final point: We are now living in a combination corporatocracy/theocracy with imperialistic ambitions and isolationism as a byproduct. Check out the history of countries that have followed a similar path and you will see that they no longer exist.

JustinOther said...

Wow, I haven't written a post that long in a while.

;)

JustinOther said...

OK, last last point. The Iraq invasion and current occupation has only created more terrorists and animocity towards the US. Instead of thwarting terrorists, we have created a climate in which terrorism is increasing.

If you listen to Osama Bin Missing, all he wanted was the US out of Saudi Arabia. That's it. Now we're on MORE Islamic soil, per se, making the problem worse.

Stardust said...

your ideas need to persuade me why I'd be better off under a Feingold or a Clark instead of a Giuliani or McCain.

First of all I don't NEED to do anything.

Maybe I should tell you that you NEED to persuade me why you think Bush has done a fine job when his ratings are now lower than any president in history. Even Republicans are abandoning him. Maybe you need to persuade me to understand how starting WWIII over a crazy man is going to solve things.
You are the one proposing aggressive action...you tell me how this is going to bring peace. You are quoting from books, blogs and links. But you have not stated how starting a third war (Iraq, Afghanistan are already happening) is going to help us...and where are we going to get the manpower?

JustinOther said...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060511

Stardust said...

It is foolish to believe talk alone will keep us safe. Surrender is even worse.

You are not reading what I write. I never said to surrender. We should NEVER "surrender". I never said we need to use talk alone.

Stardust said...

What I hear you saying is basically "the hell with diplomacy, just bomb them". Being the school bully does not work. I'm not saying don't use force ever...pacifism is a losing proposition also. There needs to be a balance and a "good" society and government will find that balance. The Bush administration policy is "screw you, we're in charge".

Justinother - You said exactly what I have been trying to say.

We can't just have a "screw you" attitude and expect to be respected by our allies. And despite Bush's "Lone Ranger" attitude...we NEED our allies to win this fight against terrorism. We can't save the world on our own.

TheJollyNihilist said...

If you asked me what I thought of Bush two days ago, I would have said, "He's an asshole."

Now comes the revelation that he's keeping a log of every phone call made in the United States.

I've just downgraded my opinion.

Stardust said...

Now comes the revelation that he's keeping a log of every phone call made in the United States.

And once the government gets away with doing something "for security reasons" it sticks forever...and also it goes further. They will soon be peering into our homes if they aren't already.

The terrorists may succeed in making us "prisoners" of our own government. US citizens are being watched and monitored (to make it look like government is actually doing something) while the terrorists run free to continue to blow things up in various parts of the world. Osama bin hidin' must be amused.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Justin --

If we stay the course, democracy will prevail. Our armies cannot be defeated in battle. However, Vietnam has taught baddies that they can prevail with patience by making moron leftist blame America crowd in the United States feel sad.

Don't believe me?

Here's what a recent al queda document, obtained during the raid on April 16th, had to say the Iraq War. From the Captain's Quarters:

"The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.

This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site)."

"At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad."

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for wanting to abandon democrats in Iraq so easily.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Justin --

Do you know anything about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The man believes he has been appointed by Allah to lead the final jihad against the infidels at the end of times. This will bring about the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, who will bring about the reign of Islam on earth after the chaos.

Ahmadinejad talks about this all of the time. In addition, he has publically called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and when called on this by the international community, merely repeated his desire. He denies the holocaust, and the leader of his expediency council believes, Allah willing, that they can win a nuclear war with the west. Mutually Assured Destruction is their goal. All of the talk and sanctions in the world will not prevent this.

THAT is why Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

We in the United States are not a theocracy. There is no religious bureaucracy that approves candidates, and people from all faiths hold public offices.

Contrary to the shining theories of Marx-Leninism, the United States is not an imperialist government.

I can't believe people are this misinformed.

I think promising to wipe out the Jews is acting like the bully to me. However, leftists continue to see Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Mr. Ahmadinejad as some sort of oppressed proletarians trying to free mankind from the oil companies, defense contractors, and even the neocon Jews.

Stardust said...

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for wanting to abandon democrats in Iraq so easily.

Are you just trying to antagonize us? We never said anything about abandoning anyone. We want to try to keep as many people from being killed as possible and to keep from having a huge disaster. Everything Bush has touched in the past has turned into a failure. Republicans and Dems alike DO NOT TRUST HIM.

Why do you keep writing stuff we did not say? Are you just trolling?

Stardust said...

However, leftists continue to see Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Mr. Ahmadinejad as some sort of oppressed proletarians trying to free mankind

Which liberal public officials might these happen to be...who has said these clowns are some sort of oppressed proletarians trying to free mankind? I would like to see actual quotes of those comments. Not blogger quotes on Dem Underground...I want to see some quotes from Liberal leadership...senators, representatives, etc.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

We don't need the support of people like former KGB agents like Vladimir Putin or the Chinese Communist Party to fight evil in the world. Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981 without any international support.

As far the NSA program is concerned, they're keeping a database of who calls who so when they find al-queda documents with phone numbers on them, they can investigate and apprehend the bad guys. The program in the news has nothing to do with snooping. Of course, like Michael Moore and others, the left maintains there is no terrorist threat and the "fascists" are in the executive branch.

What is wrong with you people?

I cannot make a case for Bush's reelection because he is not up for reelection. In the same vein, "Bush did this wrong" or "Bush did that wrong" gives me no reason why I should support Democrats, especially when they support dictators, wish to abandon democracies, and fight to stop intelligence gathering on terrorist operatives.

Jason H. Bowden said...

stardust --

Yes, you guys do not want to stay the course and support the Iraqi democracy. As ooc mentioned, we should withdrawal and let "the people" (that is, the violent, non-democratic people) decide who their dictator should be. Republicans think the democrats merit our support.

As far a supporting dictators, you guys continue to call the United States the bully and insist on Ahmadinejad's right to nuclear weapons. If you want to see sympathy for 3rd world tyrants, read the leftist comments on this very thread.

Stardust said...

As far a supporting dictators, you guys continue to call the United States the bully and insist on Ahmadinejad's right to nuclear weapons.

"You guys"...who is "You guys"

Yes, you guys do not want to stay the course and support the Iraqi democracy.

There cannot be a U.S. version of democracy in Iraq. It doesn't work. They just wanted Saddam out of power, and now want us out of their country. Things go well for awhile, then end up back to square one. Iran is a prime example of that.

Stardust said...

We might be able to accomplish something if we didn't fight amongst ourselves to much and work together to come to some resolution as to how to fix the mess Mr Bush has made of the so-called "war on terror."

Stardust said...

Jason...Mr.Knowallaboutwarandpoliticsofthe world

What is your solution to get Dems and Republicans to work together to take care of our international problems and to get in the good graces of our allies who we need to ensure international safety and peace???

Stardust said...

Latest news:

Bush, GOP Congress Losing Core Supporters

"Disaffection over spending and immigration have caused conservatives to take flight from President Bush and the Republican Congress at a rapid pace in recent weeks, sending Bush's approval ratings to record lows and presenting a new threat to the GOP's 12-year reign on Capitol Hill, according to White House officials, lawmakers and new polling data."

IT'S NOT JUST LIBERALS WHO ARE UNHAPPY AND DISAPPOINTED IN CHIMP. He is a failure.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Democrats that support Hugo Chavez include Barney Frank, John Conyers, Chaka Fattah, Jan Schakowsky, and Jose Serrano. There's about 10-15 more in the House.

Here are the hardcore socialists that support Castro:

Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), Sam Farr (Calif.), Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio), Carolyn Kilpatrick (Mich.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Cynthia McKinney (Ga.), Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), George Miller (Calif.), John Olver (Mass.), Donald Payne (N.J.), Charlie Rangel (N.Y.), José Serrano (N.Y.), Pete Stark (Calif.), Edolphus Towns (N.Y.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Nydia Velázquez (N.Y.), Maxine Waters (Calif.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.).

They are all in the same party. Care to guess which one it is?

On Democracy--

Are the 9/11 attacks proof that Democracy can't work in the United States? They killed 3,000 people. That's your reasoning about Iraq -- groups like al queda are killing people, therefore Iraqis are not capable of democracy.

JustinOther said...

Jason:

Do you know anything about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The man believes he has been appointed by Allah to lead the final jihad against the infidels at the end of times. This will bring about the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, who will bring about the reign of Islam on earth after the chaos.

Do you realize that blowing him up will only inflame more Muslims who already think this is a holy war? Are YOU so misinformed (by Fox News, no doubt) that you think that violence is the ONLY possible solution? Have you considered that a large part of the Iranian citizenry does not want their current leader. Given support from the US, the Iranian people could overthrow their own government without one US casualty.


Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981 without any international support.

Yeah, with their big brother the US looking over their shoulders. Do you think that Israel would still exist if it were not for the hegemony of the US? You don't beat up the weak kid in school if you know their big brother will come and kick your ass.

We in the United States are not a theocracy. There is no religious bureaucracy that approves candidates, and people from all faiths hold public offices.

There is no official bureaucracy, but the fundamentalists hold sway with this administration. And how many Muslims, atheists or hindus have been in elected office? Watch the news (not just Fox) and see how the religious right's agenda is being carried out by this administration.


And, as per Wikipedia:

Imperialism:
Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country considers itself part of the empire.
We're pretty damn close...

Stardust said...

Jason, do you have any credible sources? The sources you gave me appear to be merely opinion articles.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Here's the Chavez link again.

Immigration is tearing the Republican Party apart right now, if the blogasphere has been any indication.

"What is your solution to get Dems and Republicans to work together to take care of our international problems and to get in the good graces of our allies who we need to ensure international safety and peace???"

One, we first need to support our allies. Like our allies in Iraq. And Israel.

Justin --

I'm certain bombing Iran's nuclear program into a smoldering ruin will make many Muslims angry. But the Normandy invasion made the Nazis angry, and the bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima made the Japanese angry. In our context, I'd rather see Muslims angry than see Tel Aviv and possibly more cities like London or Los Angeles incinerated. But I know, you guys are nerds afraid of bullies desperate to be liked. If Dems get their way, we'll replace George Bush with George McFly.

On the subject of imperialism, James Lileks puts it best:

"The hard left in America needs to realize a bald, cruel fact: Anyone who sees no moral distinction between Israel and the mullahs of Iran, or sees the U.S. attempt to set up a constitutional republic in Iraq as equivalent to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, suffers from incurable moral cretinism. The more the fervent anti-war base embraces these ideas, the more they ensure that no one will trust the left with national security. Ever."

Stardust said...

If a stable nation of any sort emerges and is too chummy with the US, it will likely become a pariah in the region, just as it did after the signing of the Baghdad Pact in 1956. Terrorists will continue to create havoc in the streets, destroying any chance for the Iraqi people to be happy and prosperous.

History could repeat itself...

Say for instance a true demogog emerges in Iraq, unites various insurgent groups who hate America more than they hate each other, and amasses enough power to overwhelm any confederation that the US puts together. No civil war, but no democracy either. This person would become a new dictator, the strength and stability of whom would be very reassuring to the West—even if he was quietly killing off any dissent and raping the Iraqi people's natural resources for personal gain.
Does this sound familiar?

Fantasy from somewhere over the rainbow:

We can imagine a sunny world in which a true statesman emerges in Iraq, unites the various factions into a solid union, and fosters real democracy in the country.

We can dismiss this one. It absolutely cannot happen with a fragile confederacy that is not united by the vision of a single person or small group. There is no such person emerging from the rubble of Iraq today.

Jason H. Bowden said...

I'll end the night on an inspiring quote by Alexander Hamilton, a man of that Enlightenment the jihadists are fighting so hard to destroy, in the opening passages of the Federalist Papers:

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind."

Stardust said...

Immigration is tearing the Republican Party apart right now, if the blogasphere has been any indication.

That was the Washington Post...not blogland. If you read the whole thing, his ratings are LOW in ALL areas.

Jason H. Bowden said...

stardust --

Bush's ratings on Iraq have been low for a while. Immigration is what is pissing off conservatives.

"[Democracy] absolutely cannot happen......."

You are just saying this so you don't feel the guilt of feeding our secular friends in the Muslim world to the lions.

Read the excerpts from the al queda document above. Even with their media campaign, they're not doing too good.

JustinOther said...

But I know, you guys are nerds afraid of bullies desperate to be liked.

Is there really any need for this type of thing?


My point is this...I am obviously smart enough to realize that there CAN be non-violent ways to solve a problem. Having a strong military gives us the unique ability to use diplomacy. What I mean is that if you are a militarily strong nation, people will listen to you. This does NOT mean that you use force first. Nor does it mean you never use force. I agree with the need to invade Afghanistan. That was warranted.

If your position is that we should use the military to "solve" all conflicts, as I think is your position, then I do not feel the need to discuss this with you any further. I am confident in my position using my intelect instead of my fists. You may think that this is being weak. I am not a weak person. I have never let anyone walk all over me and never will. I will, however, use brains before braun. That is what intelligent people do.

Stardust said...

If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind."

And ours has been the greatest misfortune of having made the mistake of electing a blithering baboon who led us into an awful state of affairs, domestic and international.

Stardust said...

You are just saying this so you don't feel the guilt of feeding our secular friends in the Muslim world to the lions.

Do you feel guilt at the THOUSANDS of Iraqi muslim and secular dead as a result of our "democracy" mission?

Have you read everything I have written?

I read the article you provided the link for (Chavez)...it provides no direct information or quotes from the Democrats listed...it is merely a general accusation in order for the author to make HIS point. It was not an unbiased source.

Stardust said...

But I know, you guys are nerds afraid of bullies desperate to be liked.

Jason - People have differing opinions...it's a free country, remember? Justinother is an educated and a very respectful and intelligent person and so let's play nice please.

Stardust said...

What I mean is that if you are a militarily strong nation, people will listen to you. This does NOT mean that you use force first. Nor does it mean you never use force.

I am confident in my position using my intelect instead of my fists. You may think that this is being weak. I am not a weak person. I have never let anyone walk all over me and never will. I will, however, use brains before braun. That is what intelligent people do.


Justinother - I second that! Well said.

Stardust said...

Hey Jason...you might like Howard Dean again now that he has turned into a blithering Republican conservative evangelical buttkissing idiot.

Stardust said...

To add to the comment with the link to the Howard Dean story...I will admit when a liberal politician is an idiot. I will not say that a chimp is General Patton.

Roya said...

Jason maybe you should read: Basic Negotiating Strategy:International Conflict for Beginners, by Roger Fisher. It may help you stop talking bullshit.

JustinOther said...

"The truth is, we have an enormous amount in common with the Christian community, and particularly with the evangelical Christian community. And one of the biggest things that Democrats worry about is the materialism of our country, what's on television that our kids are seeing, and the lack of spirituality."

I really hate when they do this stuff. First, he is not going to win over evangelicals and get them to vote democrat. Second, he is going to alienate the democratic base...again.

The majority of Americans have liberal values and agree with democratic principles. For example, most Americans feel that gays should have the same rights and benefits as straights as well as the right to marry.

Here's the problem: The republican party frames the debate over these issues and repeats the same things over and over, giving the impression that the majority of citizens are anti-gay rights. Therefore, people get the impression that since "most people" support an anti-gay agenda, there is no point fighting it.

In other words, people with democratic values believe that majority rules (as should be the case in a representative government). If they believe that the majority supports abolishing gay rights, they stand back and allow it. In the mean time, conservatives (the minority in fact if not in appearance) votes to abolish these rights.

The radical evangelical right is a very small minority, but is able to push their agenda using the impression of large support when, in fact, there is little support for their position, even among Christians.

Dean is a politician, and politicians do what they can to get into office. They have to support ideas that they do not agree with in order to garner enough support to get in. Then, although they have to still support ideas that they don't like, they can push the ones they do. It's a balancing act, and is why the most honest politicians are rarely elected.

My favorite quote regarding elected office:

"The person most qualified for the job is the one smart enough not to want it."

Lya Kahlo said...

"All I ever hear from Democrats is evasion, doublethink, and claims about how bad Bush is. What are *your* ideas? "

Ah, Bowden. He never fails to miss the point completely. C'mon - where's the rants about those evil Muslims?

Lya Kahlo said...

"astly, it is a fantasy to believe that Islamic supremacists will not attack us if we get rid of Bush."

There it is! Glad to see your raging hatred burns on.

Lya Kahlo said...

"Is there really any need for this type of thing?"

Justin, don't fall for Bowden's bullshit. He's a bigot, and a neo-con - though he will deny both.

Stardust said...

News today May 12 -

"A senior U.S. official on Thursday ruled out U.S.-Iranian contact to help solve an international standoff over Tehran's nuclear work and said sanctions must be part of a new carrots and sticks offer to try to curb Iranian atomic activity."

(This REPUBLICAN administration is going to use the same tactics used by the Clinton administration.)

"In the latest effort to resolve the crisis, Britain, France and Germany, with backing from the United States, Russia and China, are to unveil in the next 10 days a package of inducements and penalties for Iran.

While Iran insists it wants only to enrich uranium as nuclear energy for its economy, the West suspects that program could be a front for an atomic bomb project."

I am NOT a big fan of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and think he is a big fundamentalist loony, I can see where he is afraid right now with all of these countries after him who DO have nukes.

I remember the fear when it was announced that China, India and Pakistan had nukes...some people here were saying "oh...they're going to bomb us and that all settled down.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has the eyes of the world upon him...he is "center stage" and is going to say all kinds of shit out of FEAR.

Conservatives should stop and think about how crazy religious looney Bush sounds when he has proclaimed that he is a "born again" xian and talks to gawd and gawd tells him to invade a country. That is exactly how Bush himself said he made his decision. Born again xians believe Armageddon is MEANT to happen and believe they will be with Jeebus if gawd so chooses the end of the world war...the war of wars to begin.

It is uncomfortable to me to have all these people in charge of countries who make their decisions on what a supreme sky daddy tells them.

Stardust said...

Now back to the comical picture I posted on the main page...
Bush is a blithering, evangelical, illiterate, inarticulate, inexperienced, ill-educated, ignorant about foreign affairs, sock puppet controlled by so many people it isn't funny. And if you cut the puppet strings he will collapse into a little redneck heap...he he he (annoying Bush laugh here.)He probably cries himself to sleep and sucks his thumb every night.

Stardust said...

What does Bush believe?

While Bush's road map may be "effectively dead," the concept itself was inconsistent with the unbridled expansion of Israel sought by pre-millennialists. Unlike Ronald Reagan who talked openly about his fascination with Armageddon, President Bush has not publicly referred to that event. We don't have concrete evidence of the President's true beliefs, but his policies seem more in line with core values of the Christian Reconstruction movement, a subgroup of the Religious Right that believes the Second Coming is not imminent. Reconstructionists believe that the return of Jesus Christ will come after "bible-believing" Christians have turned the United States into a Christian nation that follows the call of Saint Paul to "make disciples of all nations."

Some core values of the Christian Reconstruction movement reflected in Bush administration policies are: the federal government should recede into the background through massive tax cuts, and then churches would assume responsibility for welfare and education. Bush's signature issues such as tax cuts, faith base initiative and school vouchers fit the Reconstructionist model.

Whatever Bush believes, his environmental policies are accelerating the destruction of the natural world, and his nuclear policies are increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will proliferate and be used. Whether or not President Bush is actively seeking a fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy, his carelessness about the fate of the earth has the same kind of naive magic one finds in pictures of the new Millennium. Following the Great Tribulation, the Lord returns to an earth with clear blue skies and lush green meadows. After the final battle at Armageddon, Christ will come back to a pristine planet.

Stardust said...

Another proof of right-wing xian public agenda:

Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof, in official recognition whereof, I hereby affix my signature this 17th day of April, 2000.

How about an Isis Day, or a Zeus Day...or Satan day?? WTF!

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

"We don't have concrete evidence of the President's true beliefs."

I agree. This is because what you axiomatically take to be his "true beliefs" are not his true beliefs.

George W. Bush is a Methodist, and supporting tax cuts and school vouchers don't imply anything about a person's religious beliefs. I'm an atheist, and I support tax cuts and school vouchers.

Justin, roya--

Ahmadinejad wants to nuke the Jews for the religious reasons I've explained above. No amount of talk, brains, or diplomacy will change this state of affairs. There's a difference between this guy and the leader in Pakistan, the leader in India, the leader in Brazil and so forth. Mutually Assured Destruction is his goal.

Lya --

I don't understand why you believe every Christian is a fundamentalist, but all Muslims are simple proletarians who just want to have peaceful thoughts about the sand. Some Muslims are democratic and secular. Other Muslims oppose democracy and are willing to back up their beliefs with violence, like suiciding yourself by flying hijacked airplanes into skyscrapers filled with thousands of people. Some Muslims openly preach apocalyptic delusions, and unlike Stardust's delusions about Bush, we have direct evidence in the case of Ahmadinejad.

Of course, since you have no evidence about George Bush's theocratic agenda, you guys will postulate stuff and take it on *faith*. But when you have direct evidence from Ahmadinejad about his apocalyptic intent, you'll dismiss it and take it as axiomatic that he wants nuclear bombs for peace, despite the rhetoric about the end of times coming in two years, Israel being incinerated, and so forth.

Stardust said...

This is going in circles like arguing with xians. It's the same thing...won't read...won't consider working together with people.

What about the CERTAINTY of Israel being attacked if we attack Iran? You are so worried about Israel and it seems that you don't really care about Israel since all you care about is getting rid of Ahmadinejad.
There are bad guys in the world who already have nukes...like North Korea. They have no religious reasons to nuke anyone, but don't need any. Just as an atheist doesn't need god to do good works, some atheists don't need god to do bad.

I don't understand why you have a problem with diplomacy and why you have such a heated obsession with Ahmadinejad in blogland. It's all you seem to be concerned with...getting Ahmadinejad...holy shit! Get a grip! Like I said...calm down...the eyes of the world are on Ahmadinejad and now other countries are on him as well...

Geesh! WTF does this have to do with Bush being STUPID. All this conversation about Ahmadinejad doesn't change that fact...it's merely distracting from addressing Bush's FAILURES. He has been a failure his whole life with everything he has tried to do.

Stardust said...

Mutually Assured Destruction is his goal.

And destruction is YOUR goal...so now where does that leave the rest of the world while crazy asses blow each other up?

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

I've read everything that you've read carefully and have given you lengthy, detailed responses. What does this have to do with Christians anyway? Your deep and intense hatred of the Christian faith is clouding your view of the bigger picture.

You are criticizing Bush and promoting the alterative to his policies -- using only talk and reason to deal with fanatic individuals. Kim Jong-Il is a piece of shit, but he doesn't want to suicide himself for Allah. Others do.

Winston Churchill was obsesed with that Hitler guy at one time, but everyone blew him off as a warmonger. Neville Chamberlain, eager to avoid another Vietnam, ahem , Verdun, went to Munich and talked and reasoned with Hitler, and by "using his brains," obtained what he called "peace in our time." We know how that worked out.

Here is what Ahmadinejad said yesterday:

--------------
"JAKARTA, May 11 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told students in Indonesia Thursday Israel is an "evil regime" that would soon be "annihilated."

Addressing a cheering rally in Jakarta, Ahmadinejad dared the West to end its support for Israel, Iran Focus reported.

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled", Ahmadinejad said. "As it has lost its raison d'etre, Israel will be annihilated."
----------------------

You want us to be on the same page -- appeasement, talk, and surrender.

I know, I know, you guys really don't like Ahmadinejad, but you think BUSH is the problem, and once he leaves office, we can deal with Hitlers the right way -- talk and reason. That's the approach you take with Iraq, and international terror organizations. Why does your "compassion" only exist in the service of dictators and religious nutcases?

Stardust said...

I agree. This is because what you axiomatically take to be his "true beliefs" are not his true beliefs.

George W. Bush is a Methodist,


Bush is a BORN AGAIN XIAN. You didn't read any of the links I provided. He prays to a sky daddy who tells him to invade countries. He happens to ATTEND a Methodist church, but he has xian fundie beliefs and values.

Stardust said...

What does this have to do with Christians anyway?

The same thing it has to do with Islam...which you have a problem with. I am trying to point out that xians have these same beliefs...KILL the evil muslims. It's coming down to be a holy war. Bush talks to sky daddies. That scares me as much as Ahmadinejad talking to his.

Stardust said...

Your deep and intense hatred of the Christian faith is clouding your view of the bigger picture.

Now you are getting off topic and simply trolling.

FYI Bush's approval rating has slipped again...down to 29%

Stardust said...

You are criticizing Bush and promoting the alterative to his policies -- using only talk and reason to deal with fanatic individuals.

There you go again...no one said to use ONLY talk...we said try diplomacy first. Sanctions are being proposed BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION as well as other things I am waiting to hear more about from the countries involved.

You asked me to tell you what I think, and I did and you change my words. I think you are not wanting to discuss but just to get a flame war going here.

Ok...I am done talking about this with you since you refuse to be honest and keep changing my words.

outofcontrol said...

Jason
us leaving a country emboldened the terrorists?? I think that after the attacks they said that to try to influence people like you.
Free reign is not given. But the careless throwing away of American lives has to be thought of. Any other way of a solution has to be done first. Bush shoots first and does not care about American lives. That would take diplomacy and carefull analysis which he and his people lack except when it comes to winning elections. Foreign policy to them is foreign.

Roya said...

"Bush's approval rating has slipped again...down to 29%"

Lol. It would be nice to see a one digit number, especially 0.

Stardust said...

Lol. It would be nice to see a one digit number, especially 0.

I wonder how long before his loyal followers abandon him. I really was hoping he wasn't going to be THIS bad. It's embarrassing to have such a stupid leader. This is what happens when people vote by party instead of really considering the person they are voting for.

MichaelBains said...

LMAO!!!

Awwwww....! He's such a cuuute li'l chimperor.

Stardust said...

Jason - I am not going to take the "flame bait." ;)

We have exhausted the subject with you...we know where each other stands.

P.S.
I deleted your comments because you were insisting that I said things I did not say and continually overlooked what commentors are actually saying. You accused me of being close-minded when in fact you are quite stubborn in your own ideas and were not listening to us at all.