OT: Politics: Vocabulary List For Dubya To Study

Page 4 of 10  


...
To add a few:
Uniter not a divider Reformer with results Smaller government Balanced budget Humble foreign policy Trust the people Social security lockbox Fuzzy math Scare tactics
These may not ring a bell for those who have already forgotten the 2000 election.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Sep 2004 23:24:58 -0700, n snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Nate Perkins) wrote:

Nope, people haven't forgotten those terms. Seems that some people have forgotten a somewhat history-changing event that occured September 11, 2001. This is not September 10. A choice had to be made, we could have done what the French and other Europeans have done in the wake of terrorist attacks, or we could take a different direction and stop the problem at its source(s). Seems the latter approach has more upside potential, i.e. stop wringing our hands over the fact that although foreign gov's may coddle terrorists, we really can't do anything because those terrorists aren't really acting at the behest of those foreign gov'ts. Instead, hold those governments accountable for hosting those terrorist groups. As far as debt and budget deficits, those are of concern to us on the right as well. It's time we stop spending money on government programs that are not constitutionally identified (such as welfare, education, other entitlements) and spend that money on what is constitutionally required (seeing to the security of the country. When the constitution used the words, "see to the common welfare", the founders did *not* intend that to mean assure that everyone in the country be eligible to receive a check for the government for sustenance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

Of course everyone remembers September 11, 2001 as well. We just don't believe that 9/11 gives Bush an excuse for all of his screwups. Standing on a pile of rubble and giving a firefighter a hug doesn't excuse his expansion of government entitlements, growth of government bureaucracy, and his irresponsibility in fiscal policy. The events of 9/11 don't excuse Bush from making tremendous screwups on the questions of WMD, making terrible progress in the rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, and ineffectiveness in controlling the insurgency. It doesn't excuse the lackluster performance of the economy -- despite passing all the tax cuts he asked for at huge expense to the debt.
The notion of personal accountability and responsibility is a point that a person of privilege won't understand. You and I know that if we screw up, we are held responsible. But guys like Bush will always find someone else to blame, and will always expect to get off the hook no matter how badly they screw up.
...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27 Sep 2004 15:53:50 -0700, n snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Nate Perkins) wrote:

Where did you see me agreeing that spending additional money on entitlements was a good thing? That is one area that I definitely am disappointed with Bush. However, that said, I certainly cannot envision that Kerry is going to spend less on entitlements, AAMOF he has indicated that he is going to expand entitlements and make sure that people making money are duly punished by increasing taxes on those who are successful.

Operating on the best intelligence information you have available hardly qualifies as a "tremendous screw-up" on Bush's part. The irony here is how he is excoriated for not acting on supposed intelligence information that led to 9/11.

... and how long did it take to fully pacify Germany and Japan following WWII? In addition, in those countries, their armed forces had been completely and decisively crushed, unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan where the watchful eye of the world almost dictated that armed forces not crush those who laid down their weapons and disappeared into the woodwork, only to re-emerge as guerilla fighters.

... and if effective actions to control the insurgency were being taken right now, the discussion would be how brutal and evil Bush is because of the lack of concern for human life.

The economy is recovering if you hadn't noticed.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bush is growing entitlements and government. You are a Bush supporter. You might be "disappointed," but you are not mad enough about it to stop supporting the guy.
The other digs on Kerry are standard scare tactics, claiming that Kerry is just going to raise middle class taxes (blatantly false) or spend bigger than Bush. Of course the question of Kerry's spending more than Bush could be true -- nobody can predict the future. But it seems unlikely for the simple reason that Bush has increased spending faster than any President since LBJ. He's in a class by himself. Nobody in recent history rivals him. Odds are that whoever succeeds Bush will be a smaller spender.

This is a bit of an overstatement to claim that Bush operated on "the best intelligence information (he) had." Bush disregarded the Iraq intel from his own State Department intel unit, from the UN inspectors, and from some of his own generals. True, there was intel claiming Iraq had WMDs -- just as there was intel suggesting he did not. In the end he made a judgement call with conflicting data, and he chose wrong. But much worse than that, he portrayed the WMDs as a certainty to the UN, to Congress, and to the American people ... even though he knew that some of his intel disagreed! He and his adminstration also portrayed Iraq as having links to 9/11 to the people and even in the letter to Congress -- even though he knew he had no direct proof of that and later retracted the claim.
With regards to the intel info leading to 9/11, that's also a mixed bag. Bush claimed there was no way he could have known about an impending attack, but then in testimony it became clear that there was the Aug 6 PDB as well as other lesser warnings. Could Bush have prevented 9/11? Maybe, maybe not. But it wasn't even on their radar map! They were not focused on attacks, even when they had been warned repeatedly (by the outgoing Clinton guys, by Richard Clarke, and in PDBs) that Al Qaeda was a big threat. Remember that only 10 months earlier the Clinton guys prevented a set of terrorist attacks at the millenium -- and you know how the Bush guys love to sneer at how ineffective the Clinton people were. It should have been on the radar map, and they should have been focused on preventing it.

Neither Germany nor Japan had any appreciable insurgency at this point after they had been conquered. It's a false analogy -- insurgencies don't compare, cultures don't compare, policies don't compare, reconstruction funding doesn't compare, awarding of contracts doesn't compare, military occupation strength doesn't compare.
And I don't think you can blame the "watchful eye of the world" for letting the insurgents escape. The US didn't much care about the "watchful eye of the world" when it decided to unilaterally invade Iraq. Why claim the US cares about world opinion now?

No, you seem to imply that the only way to control the insurgency is to kill more Iraqis. Really to win the US policy has to use all of its weapons -- military, political, and economic. By taking steps immediately after the invasion to insure security with our own troops in the cities, to rapidly train the Iraqis, and to rapidly begin the rebuilding process using Iraqi and labor and international companies, we could have gained the support of the Iraqi people and weakened the base for the insurgency. We didn't take advantage of that window. Now it will be much harder. That's a huge failure.

Personally I haven't noticed much. My company is still laying off (they will probably keep me around as one of the last ones to teach the Malaysians how to do our work, though).
Nationally, I agree that the economy is slowly recovering. But many of the jobs and manufacturing base that are gone are permanently gone, and the new jobs pay less than the old ones. We've had a Fed prime of less than 2% and massive "tax cut stimulation" that was supposed to produce 6 million jobs. It lost 1.5 million instead. My stocks are stinking out as the Dow and the Nasdaq continue to steadily fall under Bush. Corporate profits are up and corporate tax payments are down at the same time that worker productiity is up and worker wages are down. Consumer spending is slightly up, but because wages are down the consumer debt is also increased.
This is not a well balanced or sustainable recovery.

Why is it that instead of talking about Bush's policies and his performance (as you'd expect would be the case with an incumbent president), instead we're all talking about Swift Boat and Rathergate crapola? Instead of focusing on Iraq policy, the voters are getting another jibe on how Kerry's a flip-flopping sailboarding quiche eater. Instead of talking about the debt the voters are told (scared) by the VPOTUS that electing Kerry will insure that "Al Qaeda hits us again." Instead of talking about how the middle class are sucking it up with the Bush tax cuts, we are told that a vote for Kerry is a vote for the Michael Moore/Hillary Clinton/Ted Kennedy socialists who want to raise your taxes. Instead of honestly talking about ways to fix the healthcare mess and thereby improve corporate competitiveness, the POTUS lies and says that Kerry has a master plan to socialize all medicine.
Fear, uncertainty, and distortion -- if you don't have a good incumbent record to run on, at least you can try to tear down your opponent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Perkins said:

Kudos to you...
Greg G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--
<Greg G.> wrote in message
news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hide posits:

Why is Kerry responsible for every statement by his supporters, while Dubya is responsible for nothing? Kennedy is speculating on the weapon, by the way, not specifying.

Bush's reaction put the country on its back, not the actual attack.
Not only

If we had a Homeland Security Department that was actually doing something constructive, it might be worth the huge amount it is getting. We don't. It isn't.
It's not just 'the Kerry people" who say we haven't done enough at the ports, by the way. We are checking something under 5% of the containerized cargo that comes into the country, leaving the rest alone.
The war in Afghanistan should have been IT! We should have prosecuted that war until Osama Bin Laden was caught or killed, and continued on to mop up the Taliban, the actual perpetrator of the 9/11 murders. Instead, we went into an even more costly war, in terms of casualties and credit (Bush has made sure we're out of cash).
Instead of doing what has come to be called a "Democratic tax and spend" deal on the wars and on the other reactions to 9/11, Bush has the normal preference of conservative Republicans: borrow and spend and allow your children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren to pay it back, if they can.
In the meantime, essentially ignore manufacturing job losses because they're being replaced with burger flipping jobs. For a guy like Bush, wealthy all his life (just like John Kerry, only more so), the difference between an 18 buck an hour job and a 6 buck an hour job is insignificant.
Charlie Self "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"Charlie Self" < snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hide responds:

For all I know, he might have, but I would guess he's speculating on the most likely areas that are apt to come up. I doubt very much many of this particular group of thugs is into archery.

Iraq is not the perpetrator.

People who have some idea of what they're talking about.

According to whom? I have heard no reports that even indicate that an increase in that percentage is possible at present levels of staffing and technology.

You have no direct knowledge of such manufacture in Iraq. Most countries may have believed that, though certainly their reaction before our attack on Baghdad, and since, doesn't indicate such a belief. Nor do the results of intensive searches.

What does that mean? Check deficit spending over the past 40-50 years and come back with a fact, not a comment on taxpayer problems.

Is this what you mean? "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday that "employment will begin to increase more quickly before long" and that erecting protective trade barriers was not the answer to the nation’s current worries about the loss of jobs to foreign competition."
Predictions are not facts, nor are they actual increases. It would be nice if they were.
As I recall, he said nothing about the level of the jobs, either.
Charlie Self "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How is it that we in the _middle_ of a war in Iraq when the president declared that major combat operations in Iraq were ended eighteen months ago?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt reminds us:

And just a few days ago claimed he was correct when he said that. This President has a way with words, but not one I would like to have.
He's also the self-professed non-reader who has people who tell him "what he needs to know." Which he then proceeds to ignore. Or misunderstand. And I don't know which is worse in a President. Willfull ignorance, or plain ol' stupidity.
Charlie Self "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And who were those Bush chose to ignore ??? the discredited security chief who was fired or perhaps Westley Clark the general who Clinton fired, tell us Fred which genious did he ignore ....mjh

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hide asks:

First, it was me, not Fred. Second, he ignored all his advisers who tell him, and keep telling him, that Iraq is a much bigger mess, and danger, than he admits to. The military, the CIA, just about everyone on the ground over there who is capable of examining the scene reports that the violence is worsening, the likelihood of civil war increasing. Hell, read the newspapers--and pick a neocon paper if you wish. The deaths and maimings are almost daily. Actually, they are daily if we count the Iraqis who are catching it from both sides.
Charlie Self "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I do not read the papers any of them ,the US press is not to be trusted . the top of the line paper the NY Times had lied time and again ,their reporting is entirely incredable.
Of the hundreds of advisors, exactly which ones is Bush not listening to ? mjh
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hide responds:

Mike, you've gotten ridiculous here. I'm not about to respond to any more of this. HTF do I know exactly which advisers W may respond to. As I said, do what you claim to never do, and read the newspapers. Read the QUOTES from the military leaders.
You're like Bush: you don't read and you don't listen.
Charlie Self "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have read the papers in the past and as I see it the NY Times consistently lies as does the LA Times, the Globe and the Washington Post. To the point it is so obvious that they have had to fire many of their top line reporters .
I am basically a conservative, and have realized that the major TV media are in various degrees a bunch of socialists [liberal democrats one of the same ] . I parted ways with most of them a long time ago for the most part due to their reporting the Vietnam war, their reporting of the TET offensive and support for the llikes of Kerry and Fonda was the straw that broke the camels back, for me at least.
Again in my mind the US media were one of the main reasons the US lost the Vietnam war, and furthermore discredited the men who fought it , most of which were simply doing their duty not for the most part by choice .
I see the same happeneing now with their ever critizism of what is going on in Iraq, for instance the uproar regarding the Iraqi prison degradations by US guards, and virtually none regarding the animalist treatment of terrorist captives and the daily murder of Iraqi civilians and policemen by car bombs. Almost the same coloring of the news, the same biased priorities, the same attitudes,[nothing the president or his advisors does is right] . There are a lot of things being done in Iraq for the good that is never reported ,only how many were killed by car bombs etc, in a country that size on a percentage basis it is probably no more if that ,that get killed in road accidents on a daily basis in the US .
No if it keeps going as it is by the media it will be the same result, America will be again discredited by it's own news media.
My only comments are as shown at the lead in to this "rant" . My question regarding who exactly is Bush NOT listening to still stands and begs your answer Charlie .
I apologize to this group, I thought this thread would die a natural death long ago but Charlie I suppose has to have the last word . This is a woodworking group not a political one . I will not be responding to any more posts on this subject perhaps others will do the same and the dam thing will die here and now....thanks a lot Tom and good bye charlie....PLONK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike Hide" wrote in message

consistently
reporters
Looks to me like Dan Rather and CBS just did it again on the draft issue. I am at the point of informing everyone in the house that if I see a TV in this house on CBS, both the TV and whoever tuned it there, are history.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman responds:

Rather is getting rather obvious, I think. I'm of the opinion that if things are not settled down in Iraq within a year or so, we may well be looking at a re-start of the draft, but no one yet knows for sure, and I don't see it as a sensible issue for the election. There's certainly plenty to argue about without adding things that do not yet exist, that may never exist.
Charlie Self "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

I
things
at a

as a

I agree with you ... well put. Being a former draftee myself, and after my experience with fighting in one of this country's "wars", I certainly don't want my daughters drafted, and ditto if I had a son.
However, and I know you are know it as well as I do so I apologize if it sounds like preaching, but there is a point when national security may well require for both to be ... but in that scenario I'd like to be damn sure beforehand that it would be worse for them in the long run if they were NOT drafted.
I can clearly see that was not the case in the formerly alluded to situation, and I am not necessarily convinced that it is in the current one.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.