John Kerry - the man who would be president - Page 9 - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Oct 30, 2004, 11:36 PM
Registered User
spencer6891's Avatar
Actually, Easytiger, he isn't off the mark at all. Why don't you explain why you feel that way. After all, if you went to the Communist Party USA website and didn't know it was the CPUSA, you'd think it was just another Democrat website. And are you denying that the Republican Party supports big government now? Come on man, LTChip layed it out pretty well. Has Bush done much to cut social welfare programs? How about reducing the budgets for federal education? Last time I looked, he passed the biggest education spending bill in US history. You liberals complain about the deficit, and somehow try to tie it to conservatism, but there's only one way to cause a deficit--SPENDING. And that is why liberals hate it so bad when true conservatives say Republicans are liberals.

And the Democrats...don't even get me started on them. I can't name three differences between today's liberal Democrat philosophy and that of the Communist philosophy.

Oct 30, 2004, 11:41 PM
Registered User
LTChip's Avatar
I don't think I have ever witnessed someone who shies away from substantive issues more than ET.

My favorite ET diversion techniques

1. Attack the link thereby claim to discredit the entire post
2. Mischaracterize the post then dismiss it outright
3. Ignore entirely posts that call out an error, inconsistency, or hypocrisy in ET posts

These types of responses get old pretty quick.

I might disagree with the likes of HH, IRSDog, or V1 and others but at least they try to engage without being dismissive and have some logic and reasoning involved in their responses.

Hard to respond to someone when they just say "you are off the mark" or some other equally dismissive comment. Following ET’s debating style is akin to the playground oration of:
“Did so.”
“Did not.”
“Did so.”
“Did not…..”
Ad infinitum.

What fun is there in that?
Oct 31, 2004, 12:10 AM
Registered User
spencer6891's Avatar
Absolutely agree LT. I've pointed out several of ET's own contradictions in another thread---where he's said one thing and then the complete opposite a few posts later---and he just ignores it and expects the debate to continue without even addressing his hypocrisy. He completely discredits himself with circular arguments and I'm yet to see sensible, honest debate from him. Come on ET. You're a smart guy. Is this really the extent of your debating skills? You can only say "Bush is a failure" so many times before people just leave the thread. The purpose of debating is to try to persuade another person to your thinking. You can't do that with general ad hominem attacks and repeated rhetoric.

Oct 31, 2004, 01:36 AM
sensitive artsy type
Treetop's Avatar
The problem is not the beliefs of the Christian fundamentalists, it is the fact that, politically speaking, their beliefs are anti-Constitutional and are bent on changing current law. These hot button issues make them easy enlistees to the modern Republican party, which is willing to throw them a small bone occasionally. Mr. Bush is the ultimate candidate of these people as he is seen to be one of their own. Politically speaking, however he is not in Washington to expand their desires of change, but is beholden to those who worship at the alter of greed. The real political agenda of GWB is that of business. What is the solution to our need for petroleum imports to run our country? The agenda of the current energy companies is to secure oil. The partner in that enterprise in the last 40 years has been the Saudis. The future availability of Saudi oil is certainly in question.

Enter Iraq. Enter Neocons. Enter closed door energy policy.

The idea of alternatives to foreign oil is not as inviting to the oil developers as finding a secure source of oil by using the US Military as their means of extracting this oil. Iraq has the second largest known reserve in the world, and it is the finest light sweet crude there is, and is very cheap to extract, not counting the military costs. (provided by the taxpayers)

I am not saying we invaded Iraq to steal their oil. I am saying we invaded Iraq to secure the ability to buy their oil. This is obvious, considering Rumsfeld's own words recently concerning securing weapons dumps, when he said our main concern was to secure the oil fields. That is why the basic philosophy has failed in the invasion, as the planners saw an opportunity to cut off the head of Iraq, and insert a government that would be advantageous to the US. Their thinking is obvious, that the Iraqis would be so happy to have Saddam gone, they would welcome this change with open arms. Unfortunately, they have encountered arms of a different nature, and a population unwilling to kowtow to the US. The re-election of Bush, if that happens will see the Neocons brought to the forefront for their roll in this blunder, as the situation is nowhere near controllable, and the Republicans will see to a change in MO after the election. tt
Oct 31, 2004, 06:05 AM
Registered User
vintage1's Avatar
I think researching the links between the Neocons and Israel will provide you wih a more balanced picture of the current situation.

As to Big Government - well ther are many views of democracy:

"One man, One vote"
"One man, One vote - and I am that man" (attributed probaly falsely to Robert Mugabwe)
"One man, one vote, Once" (the radical Islamic view)

Big government is what happens when power gets usurped by a small bunch of guys with an agenda.

When people revere their government beyond its capabilities, and look to it to solve problems it has no right addressing.

When power for its own sake, and to serve a cadre of people and not THE people, becomes the issue.

Ultimately it is self defeating, because a government that does not serve the people wastes the country as a whle - that was essentially teh demise of the Soviet Union. But it can take a long long time to go, and what is left behind is not pretty.

In a sense all demoracies are moe or less oligarchies: Its a fiction to think that just anyone can become President. Only those with powerful financial conections, and a history of polotics stand any hope whatsoever. The change that seems to have come about in teh last 20 years is that instead of realtive wise men who realised that their survival as a ruling elite depended on them delivering at least some form of progress to the population, today we seem to hae a situation where they only need deliver the illusionof progress, or, worse still, the illusion of deliverance from specious threats to stay in power.

In short, marketing is no longer a toll at the disposal of the ruling elite, the ruling elite are tools a the disposal of marketing. GWB and Ronald Reagan are boh examples of peole who were selcetd not for thier abiliy to fnction as competenet hedas of state, but for their ability to win elections by appealing to a broad mass of te populations as media stars. |Our own Tony Bliar is the same. He looks good, he sonds good, but he has achieved almost nothing, apart frm dumping us in a war that over 50% of te popualtion thought was not the best way to tackle the problems.

Along with this new marketing-led approach has come a new morality. Once upon a time if yu were caught being amoral in public life, you were out. Now its merely necessary to claim that you 'believed you were doing the right thing' and you are somehow morally blameless. e have a situatin where teh Prime minsiter in fullpossesion of teh evidence at the tme, created a different analysis of it to the one that was recommended by teh intelligence staff. We know this as fact. In short he made a biaased and incompetent at best, and at worse deliberately decpeticcve analysis which was presented to the public. Des he feel shame? No. He claims that 'he believed he was right'.

Ojn any othre sphere of life someone who was either lying, or uterly incompetent, would be sacked forthwith. Not he. And his party won't, because they want to stay in power. And their supporters will support him., because they want them to stay in power.

Its cool to lie, is cool to do anything, say anything, as long as somehow you get away with it and stay in power. And the devil take the hindmost.

Give me a hundred Clintons haveing scenes with their secretaries to one leader who lies cheats deceives the whole public, not on an issue of personal lust, but on a matter of national - even global - importance, where billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake.

Ther is an old chinese saying

The worst leader, the people fear
The next worst leader the people love.
The best leader of all, the people say 'we did it ourselves'

My vote goes to whoever has teh respect for ME as an individual, to manage my own affairs and those around me, and gets out of MY face. Sometimes I cold use a little help, but mainly, its my business, not Governments.

Maybe thats the new way forward: get a new movent going to get government out of meddling. Dunno who will start it tho.
Oct 31, 2004, 06:45 AM
Sloping off....
leccyflyer's Avatar
As Vintage1 said this subject is being talked about extensively on TV over here at the moment with programmes such as The Power of Nightmares dealing with the way in which both the terrorists and the current administration came to where we are now, how they will keep their "war" going and how, rather than being directly opposed, their aims and objectives exhibit a degree of convergence, or at least that is how their respective MOs affect the rest of us.

The rise to prominence of the evangelicals was dealt with last night in a very interesting programme on Channel 4 entitled With God on Our Side which might have been old hat to you poor people subjected to it on a daily basis, but which contained quite a few eye openers for us. It made for interesting viewing, but more than a little scary.

Over here the Church is, thankfully, a much less significant part of the power base than it was and, apart from the ceremonial aspect, is largely irrelevant now in our daily lives and in how policy is set. You in the USA are lucky enough, thanks to the foresight of those who founded your country to get away from the interference of religion into peoples' lives and the running or the state, to even have written into your constitution a system of checks against the influence of these groups on the state and vice versa.

I suppose that the whole Rapture thing would be harmless enough if there wasn't the underlying suspicion that real people in real life are possibly making real decisions which affect the rest of us based on this belief. A quick read of the website demonstrates that there are a slew of people who would rather be beamed up straight away, rather than make the best of their lives here on earth. If they want to hide away in the hills and do that, then it's up to them, but I'm sorry but IMHO that sort of escapism has no place in the minds of those in government. I want my world political leaders to be very much more concerned with earthly matters than heavenly matters, thank's very much.

Another excellent programme that has been discussing this subject and running over the past month is Jonathon Miller's A Brief History of Disbelief, which made some key points for me and underlined the key driving issue as far as I'm concerned. He described how the politicisation of those religious beliefs on both sides, the Muslim and the Judeo-Christian, have now reached the extent where we have two blocs who now actively seem to want to engage in global holy war or crusade, call it what you will. I don't care who started it, I just want no part of it.

As regards what, if anything Iraq had to do with this, what they had to do with 911 and what the justification and aims of the invasion of Iraq was, then you need look no further than the Project For A New American Century. I only said the other day that it's rarely mentioned here in this forum and wondered how widespread knowledge of those plans, and the people involved in putting them together is. Maybe it's old news to you all - I wasn't aware of it until fairly recently.

The key feature of this scheme as far as I'm concerned is that it predates 911 by several years, it predates the coming to power of the current President and it describes the need to invade Iraq as part of a larger plan for consolidating American strategic interests in the world as a whole. It isnt a wacky left wing conspiracy theory, it's a proposed shift in US policy planned by the very people who now occupy the seat of power in the United States. They even have their own website - PNAC

If the planners need to develop their project by riding on the wave of support of Evangelicals and to use one of their number as a rallying point then, so long as the plan gets implemented, they couldn't really care less.
Oct 31, 2004, 07:19 AM
Restful User
Jacques Flambeau's Avatar
I can't name three differences between today's liberal Democrat philosophy and that of the Communist philosophy...
Sounds like more Bushie fear tactics obfusticating the issue at hand. How are Democrats and Commies similar?

OTOH, I'm impressed. The Brits here seem to have a firm grasp of the situation.

Oct 31, 2004, 08:37 AM
Registered User
spencer6891's Avatar
How are Democrats and Commies similar?
BWAHAHA! You serious? Just take a look at the Communist Party USA's website:

And their agenda:

An excerpt:

"Bush's extreme agenda

Despite its lack of popular support, this illegitimate Administration is charging full steam ahead with its extremist agenda. Its aims are clear. They include:

Breaking unions and ending their political activity
Eliminating occupational health and safety standards
Destroying affirmative action and weakening civil rights
Ending women's reproductive rights
Gutting environmental protection
De-funding and privatizing Social Security, Medicare and public education
Ending separation of church and state
Promoting guns and giving the green light to armed right-wing militia
Expansion of the death penalty and abuse of police power
Corporate deregulation
Tax cuts for the super-rich
"Free Trade" policies to promote corporate flight overseas and undermine U.S. wages and working conditions
Militarization of space and subversion of peaceful international relations everywhere"

Sounds just like the Democrats I debate with daily.

Oct 31, 2004, 09:47 AM
Permanently Banned
Oh, now then are COMMUNISTS. Jeez, had to dust that one off. Find that one way out in the back of the barn?
"Heh, heh...let's dust off this old Communis' Scare Thang and put it up in the front was a scream back in the Fifties!"
Yeah. Sure. I remember them saying how war with the Commies was inevitable. Forty years of fear. Guess what? Thanks to CONTAINMENT, Communism imploded all on it's own. Every time we went for open war with them, it ended badly.
The same will happen with Islamic Fundimentalism, if we play it right. Iran was right on the brink of major reform, UNTIL we invaded Iraq. You think people WANT to live under a Fundimentalist Caliphate? Sooner or later, they get TIRED of working for a nes set of robes for the Caliph. It's not a viable form of government, it's doomed from the start, it only took from 1977-2002 or so for it to run its course in Iran, then we have to invade Iraq and set them back.
Holy war. My God. Sure, if you WANT it, that's what we can have. But if you think it will not end up in nuclear exchange, you are nuts. If you think it is unavoidable, you are stupid.

"Another excellent programme that has been discussing this subject and running over the past month is Jonathon Miller's A Brief History of Disbelief, which made some key points for me and underlined the key driving issue as far as I'm concerned. He described how the politicisation of those religious beliefs on both sides, the Muslim and the Judeo-Christian, have now reached the extent where we have two blocs who now actively seem to want to engage in global holy war or crusade, call it what you will. I don't care who started it, I just want no part of it."

THANK YOU, Leccyflyer.
THIS is why the whole evangelical thing matters. We have a bunch of nutters who ARE in power, and they DO want a holy war, and they don't care if me or my family get killed in the process, as we are not part of their group.

The whole PNAC thing, well...they PNAC people are very, very smart. They know that normal people are going to disbeleive that there IS some great plan, so they are just out and open with it, knowing full well that people will just figure it can't be true and dismiss it as tinfoil hat stuff.
Oct 31, 2004, 09:52 AM
Registered User
Highflight, let me see if I've got this right, because prior to reading this thread it has never occured to me that this was possible....
From what I gather there is a whole class of Bush supporters out there who owe ther allegiance because they are actively attracted by the desire to start WWIII and believe Bush is the guy to deliver it. Is that a fair assesment?
Last edited by FlightPower; Oct 31, 2004 at 09:58 AM. Reason: clarity
Oct 31, 2004, 10:06 AM
Permanently Banned
Understanding Highflight:

Wow, I feel bad about that, and I think the US should have tried a lot harder considering that there are so many insurgents still alive causing us "inconvenience".

Hopefully, Bush will rectify the situation and kill another 200,000 Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian, insurgents when the Fulugia wipe-out gets underway.

Sorry about that, world. We'll do better next time.

Originally Posted by Mike Wizynajtys
I just wanna say that while I personally prefer Bush to Kerry, Highflight does not speak for me or hopfully most of the rest of us U.S. citizens.


So, you prefer that we wait for another "blood running in the streets" attack on US soil before acting further?

This is war, people. Wars don't end until you either kill all the bad guys or you kill enough of them where their own people no longer support them. I'm not aware of any war in history that has ended any other way. Those that you might think have ended any other way were simply put off until a later date.

Get real, gentlemen. This is WWIII, and it's not the US that started it.

Refer to the most recent "blood running in the streets" tape by the American (California) born whack-job Muslim Extremist (Adam something or other) who made a very clear statement that the US is going to pay for electing Bush because of the "decades" (understand what that means... he used the word "decades", and Bush has only been in office since 2000) of US aggression.
That means that his kind of people (Muslim Extremists) are ready to fight to the end, and thankfully, Bush will oblige them.
Of course, it may turn out that the new "compassionate conservative" GW Bush may might only have to kill 18,000 terrorists so that would be good news for the Arab world.,2933,120938,00.html
Besides the 18,000 part of that article, I hope you peaceniks read the rest to see that we truly are in for a world wide fight. A fight in which John Kerry would rather lay down and be the world's doormat.

So yea, I'm serious, and I make no apologies for it.


So. Make of that what you will.
Oct 31, 2004, 11:31 AM
Registered User
LTChip's Avatar
I think this quote captures the key element of Highflight's position which you again are mischaracterizing as the diametric opposite position:

"Get real, gentlemen. This is WWIII, and it's not the US that started it."

They started it not us.

If you conspiracy folks want to debate that Iraq was part of some long held plan, I am with you. It was as you may not recognize President Bill Clinton that changed our official position on Iraq from containment to regime change. Bush chose to hold Iraq accountable. From my perspective, Iraq's 12 year deception and defiance was reason enough to topple Sadam, 9/11 notwithstanding. Gore and Clinton agreed with me on that which is why our posture changed.
Oct 31, 2004, 11:39 AM
Permanently Banned
I agree, that IS the gist of highflight's position.
And I think he is totally, completely, blindingly, WRONG.
As far as "they started it"...well...that's open for debate. Osama himself would tell you that the root of his power is the Palestinian question. And I think we all know where the US stands on that.
Containment and regime change are not mutally exclusive. I also do not see where there was any official policy change...and...I do not see where Clinton invaded Iraq.
It all comes back to Clinton, sooner or later, always, it seems.
That was over four years ago. I'm sorry, but BUSH invaded Iraq. George Bush. Not Bill Clinton.
And it was a huge mistake. And it had nothing to do with the "war on terror".
Oct 31, 2004, 06:43 PM
Registered User
vintage1's Avatar
When the IRA blew up the British government, sadly missing the few we could have done without, we didn't start a war.

We knew what it was, what it was about, why it had happened.

When I saw the towers go, one word leapt into my mind.


That word has a precise meaning within the context of the IRA terrorist campaign.
A piece of violent propaganda, guaranteed to get media attention, and usually in the hope of consolidating suport among the faithful, and, with luck, providing a huge overreaction by the military, involving lots of civilian deaths, more martyrs to the cause, and hopefully escalation of an armed conflict.

In short the USA did precisely what Bin Laden dreamed of. Roared into the middle east, all guns blazing, killed (hundreds?) of thousands, and made themselves thoroughly unpopular with everyone except Israel.

We couldn't believe the stupidity. Been there, done that, got Bloody Sunday, and as one member of the Catholic community said 'after that, the British army beat us into the arms of the IRA'

Exactly as the US army is beating the Iraqis into Bin Laden's arms right now.

What is even more incredible, to me, is that these techniques of spectaculars and so on, have been known by, and used by the CIA, the KGB, the British SOE and intelligence agencies, ever since the last war. And yet the perception of Bin Ladens operation was quickly restructured into something the Neocons could use to justify a course of action (we have since discovered) was planned years before. For very different reasons.

In short, 911 was not the reason, it was the excuse.

If you look into the history of the Neocons, you find a disssatisfied group of ex COMMUNIST jewish and other intellectuals, transformed and disillusioned through their inolvement with the Democratic movement, to re-emerge as movers and shakers behind the Reagan administration, and subesquently the Bush (Jnr) administration. They are all fiercely pro Israel, (the only POSSIBLE country directly threatened by any conceivable WMD that Saddam as it tuirned out didn't have: Let's face it they managed to lob a Scud into Tel Aviv, just one Scud, before they were disramed in the first Gulf War) and fiercely of the opinion that the USA needs to stamp its dominance across the globe and introduce some fantasy of freedom and world democracy by killing anyone who doesn't want it.

In the Reagan era they told everyone the USSR was a serious threat, and was developing super weapons, which it wasn't.

In short, the USA is losing lives, not because of 911, not because its actually threatened, but simply and purely because a group of people who have Dubyas ear have conned him into believing that it's so, because THEY want to see Israel made safe and secure for Zionism. Anthrax Attack? Made in the USA, posted in the USA, by who? Who wanted a nice climate of fear? No one that has ben brought to book for it yet. How clumsy or suspicious is THAT?

And its precisely this support of Israel, and the fact that they (Isreal) have effectively rendered a whole nation homeless, and the fact that the ONLY terror group Saddam suported was Hammas - which is a Palestinian anti-Israeli movement ONLY, that gives rise to most of the anti-American feeling in the Middle East. Bin Laden has an agenda also to reintroduce spiritual puruiity and a back to traditional values type religious government in his home country of Saudi, sure, but that doesn't excite the average Arab much. Any more than a Bush/baptist agenda to reintroduce flogging of homosexuals, women back to hearth and home, and other artefacts of religious intolerance bothers e.g. the rest of the Christian world.

In short, its not oil, Its Israel. That's where your tax dollars are going, that's who is in imminent danger of WMD, and that's why our soliders are all cruising the streets of Iraqi towns.

And the more the Arab world feels 'who is next' the more bombs there will be from the madder and more paranoid members of the Arab world, the more propaganda the Mullahs will spit out and the more Muslims will get beaten up in the USA, and the more repressive the USA will become of its own population, never mind Abu Ghraib ad Guantanamo bay.

Its a downwards spiral of mutual fear and suspicion and violence, and the two architects are the radical Islamists, and the radical Zionists, with the Neocons jumping on the band wagon, and pulling in the Churches as well.

In short, these guys are all trying to start a gloal religious war.

Which is why I say to those of you who are devout and religious, if you want to fight a crusage or a Jihad, do it on your own. I've got Christian friends, I've got Muslim friends, and we none of us want any part of it.

And I advise you who don't want any part of somebody elses war, to vote whichever way you feel will get you out of it. The Great Lie is that its YOUR war. Its not. Its Bin Laden's , it's Israel's, it's the Neocons. There is no War on Terror. What there really is, everywhere (else) in the world, is just a slow and careful reaction to a very small group of people who use it, a general improvement of intelligence, and occasionally a few casualties when the odd bomber get through.

And generally sanctions on those who do the funding, and criminal action against those you can catch. Thats how yo sort out that sort of thing. Tried and tested.

I mean right now, the Mexocan army could walk into California and annex it - there's simply no one LEFT to defend the USA (apart from Arnie, but I have my doubts if he is more than a big bottom pinching wuss, frankly). All gone to Iraq to defend the Israelis. Not that the Mexicans want california...but you get my point.

If there was really a WAR on, would any sane commander in chief send his troops halfway round the world to invade a country that has never made a single hostile move against the USA? Only against Kuwait and Israel? And leave his own country completely undefended? Get real.

Oct 31, 2004, 08:44 PM
Registered User
mikefast's Avatar
Got this by E-mail this evening.

Big John
Every mornin' on the Hill you could see him arrive.
Standing six-foot-four, weighing one-twenty-five
Kinda' scrawny at the shoulders and lacking a spine
And when he spoke at all, it was mainly to whine
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John

Nobody seems to know what's in John's soul
His 'beliefs' are based on the latest poll
'Though he'll say what it takes to get your votes
It's the leftist agenda that he really promotes -
Big John.

Some one said he came from Boston town
Where he joined the Navy and gained renown
'Earning' three purple hearts and one bronze star
The home folks said, "This boy will go far"
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

Then came a day back in '71
When he renounced all the medals that he had won
Then turned against his country and his Navy friends
And sold them out for his own selfish ends (Big John)

He appeared before Congress and on left-wing talk shows
Giving aid and comfort to America's foes
It was clear to see whose side he was on
Some say he helped cause the fall of Saigon -
Big John (Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

He claims to be for the working poor
Yet he owns 5 mansions from shore to shore
He never had to work a day in his life
'cause he learned it helps to have a wealthy wife! - Big John

Now he wants to be our next President
and Commander-in-chief of those he resents:
The American soldiers who fight and die
To give him the freedom to tell us his lies
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

Thousands have sacrificed their young lives
To help ensure that our nation survives
A vote for Kerry is a slap in the face
To all the brave soldiers that he's disgraced
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

-- Author unknown but give him a hand

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Top performance from a man who would be POTUS gtstubbs Life, The Universe, and Politics 7 Apr 24, 2007 09:42 AM
Who would be interested in indoor flying in Cleveland? Chris K Scratchbuilt Indoor and Micro Models 2 Oct 17, 2002 03:10 PM