| Subject: I don't agree |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 2/04 3:31am
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "A far better leader than Bush" on 10/ 1/04 9:38pm
Ben:
Look - I think we just seem to disagree about this pretty fundamentally. I think the Democrats' rational basis for their platform and their choices is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, given a choice between Democrat and Republican, I'll always vote Republican. We can discuss this in another thread, which might actually be a good idea. You can start it, or I will later. On to the post.
>Well, this is part of the problem, in my opinion.
>Often, the best solution isn't the most "inspiring."
OK - maybe I should have been more clear - His plan doesn't inspire my confidence that he'll accomplish anything.
>I think Bush comes from a line of thinking which
>encourages big, bold movements that the common man can
>really get behind.
See, I don't buy the "intellectual elitist" view of American politics that every left-leaning person seems to think is the case. It's not about "convincing the idiot masses." He's not making "big bold moves" to inspire the "common man." He's doing what he thinks is right (which the majority of us seem to agree with, I might add.)
>In reality, I think politics are
>much more subtle and intricate than a typical American
>can understand.
And I *really* dislike the, "Daddy knows best" argument. Look - we're all reasonable people. Either what Kerry says about his plan in Iraq is crap, or it's not. Are you trying to say that, "Even if Kerry never sets out a clear plan, or we can't figure out just how in the world he's going to manage to make it work, we should accept it because we couldn't possibly understand the subtleties and intricacies of international politics"?
Your argument seems to set up a no-lose situation, kind of how Fundamentalist Christians do with statements about "God's will" and bad things happening:
"If Kerry explains himself and we agree with him, then that's good. But if we don't understand how he's going to do what he says, or, indeed, even WHAT he's planning to do in the first place, we should just trust Him anyways, because, who are we to know the mind of Kerry?"
It sounds an awful lot like "don't trust your own intellect - trust in Kerry."
>It’s the difference in watching PBS
>and the Fox network. Most people prefer to watch Fox
>because it’s more accessible, but that doesn’t make it
>more accurate or true-to-life. People want to be
>inspired, but I want an intelligent leader who
>understands the often boring, but real, world of
>diplomacy and unity with other nations.
OK - I think I should've been more clear about what I meant by "inspired." Not in a Rah-rah Patriotic sense. I meant that Kerry's plan didn't inspire CONFIDENCE in Kerry. Bush's plan (which is working) isn't exactly exciting and "inspiring" in any sense, but he's definitely dealing with the "boring" "real" world of international relations.
>>Notice that, when asked, "Specifically, what would you
>>do about our situation in Iraq," he didn't answer, and
>>instead went on a 2 minute tirade about what Bush was
>>doing wrong.
>Maybe we were watching different debates. In the one
>I saw, he briefly outlined a four-point plan of action
>that he would take in Iraq.
Uhm. What, exactly was the 4-point plan? I mean, I heard Kerry say things like, "and in the 4-point plan I outlined," but I never heard the 4 points... I think he accidentally got ahead of himself and forgot that he hadn't introduced the plan, but just ran with it and figured we wouldn't notice...
No, really - what was it?
1)"Think things through,"
2)"Tell them we're not staying forever,"
3)"Involve the world," and
4) "Close Iraq's borders?"
He might as well have said his plan was to,
1) "Minimize sorrow,"
2) "Fight Jealousy,"
3) "Maximize Good," and
4) "Remember the Children."
How much more vague can you be? As I recall, he NEVER outlined any specifics.
> I’m not sure what you
>expect in two-minute segments, but Bush certainly
>didn’t do any better, simply uttering the same phrases
>over and over about Kerry changing his mind on the war
>in Iraq. He sounded like a bird that only knows one
>song.
No, he sounded like a guy who kept repeating a scathing assessment of why his opponent wasn't fit for office. And his opponent's tactic was to ignore it. So he kept repeating it.
>We’ve all seen what Bush did with Iraq… he has
>effectively gotten us into another Vietnam. Don’t you
>find it odd that Bush has extended our armed forces to
>their very outer limits for this thing? And doesn’t
>it bother you that we’re spending a billion dollars a
>day in a war that the majority of Americans weren’t
>certain about? I thought Kerry hit the nail on the
>head when he said that George Bush, Sr. knew better
>than to go into the heart of Iraq. His son apparently
>didn’t.
>
>I think it’s a complete
>misrepresentation to think that Kerry is naïve about
>international relations. If anyone is, it’s the
>spoiled oil tycoon who became governor for a little
>while, then entered the complex world of Washington
>politics without a clue as to how it really works.
Except that he's got a party who DOES know how to run our country properly backing him. As opposed to Kerry, whose party has an ideologically flawed and damaging economic policy, and a history of screwing up internationally (though we're "very well liked," 'cause we give everyone what they want when a Democrat's in office...). Assuming that both Kerry and Bush couldn't run the country well, at least Bush has the backing of party with a rationally defensible platform. See, when you take Democratic policy to its rational basis, you see it for what it is. And it's not a pleasant view. (It's Economic vs. Socialistic viewpoints) (And, interestingly, aside from the failed Socialistic experiments of these last few decades, we're starting to see that many of the tenets of Socialistic philosophy are verifiably untrue, scientifically... This is an interesting topic of dicsussion - maybe we should start another thread).
>This brings me to the primary reason why I trust Kerry
>over Bush: he has been a Senator for so many years.
>He understands how the system works. It’s like the
>difference in a principal of a school who has never
>taught and one who has. The one who has been a
>teacher is usually a much better principal.
I think you've found a very apt analogy - so what about the Principal who's been principal for 4 years, as opposed to the teacher who now wants to be principal? You've got to see the difference between Kerry's stint as a US Senator, and the kind of leadership it takes to run a nation. Bush has done it, and done it well, for 4 years. I haven't seen Kerry run anything except for his mouth...
>Even though he is obviously much smarter than Bush,
>and I trust intelligent people more, the main reason I
>like him is that he seems to really understand how to
>do things. He knows you can’t simply bomb something
>every time foreign relations doesn’t go your way.
Ri-i-i-ght... It's too complicated for Bush to understand? Why do we all assume that
>Of
>course every country does what is in its own interest,
>but Bush doesn’t seem to understand the incredible
>benefit of having good relationships with other
>nations. He’s a loose cannon, and I trust someone
>more who sets a greater value on diplomacy than
>infantry.
>
>>The debate tonight did 2 things: Reconfirmed that Bush
>>is a terrible public speaker, and exposed Kerry for
>>the danger he is - a wannabe-world-leader naif who
>>would get more troops killed in Iraq, would end up
>>messing things up with North Korea, and would weaken
>>our country by trying to appease and placate everyone.
>
>I completely disagree. In fact, most of what Kerry
>said about Iraq is exactly what I think is right.
>Yes, we’re in a bad situation, but now we have to do
>the best we can with it and get our troops out of
>there. We don’t belong there. If we want to oust
>every evil dictator, there are plenty more out there.
>I’d like to see Bush get more involved with countries
>that have dictators but no oil. I’d like to see him
>post guards on the nuclear plants in the countries
>rather than only the oil refineries.
>
>>Notice his slogan: "Respected in the world." That
>>right there is an admission he doesn't "get it." The
>>reason we get the idea that we're not "respected" in
>>the world is because we're told by the Democrats, "How
>>much the rest of the world hates us."
>>
>>And it's all a big scam-job. Nations don't "like" or
>>"dislike" each other like people do. They don't
>>"respect" or "disrespect" like people do. They
>>interact, and they each do what's in their own best
>>interests. And sometimes, those interests don't match
>>- but it doesn't mean they "hate" us.
>
>I’m not so sure I agree with this. Nations are
>nothing more than people, and people form opinions.
>Much like France is “hated” by many in the United
>States now, we too are “hated” in some sense by many
>nations who see what we’re doing and don’t like it.
>
>>But here's the thing: If tbey do, it's simply because
>>they don't agree with what we've done. And if Kerry
>>thinks it's more important to "please" Germany and
>>France than to look our for our own interests, he's
>>the last person we need right now.
>
>I didn’t hear him say anything about trying to make
>everyone like us. The way I see it, of course there
>might be times when we have to do things that other
>countries don’t like. But the best course of action
>is to find a balance wherein we can make moves that
>benefit us and those we want to help, while at the
>same time creating as much international support as
>possible. If we can do both, all the better, right?
>Bush doesn’t even seem to try, which is my problem.
>I’m sure Kerry would not base everything he did on
>what other nations thought, but he would do his best
>to find a proper balance to keep us from losing any
>more international support than necessary.
>
>>Kerry and the rest of the Democrats have made great
>>efforts to convince us that Bush is somehow
>>"disreputable" as a world leader. And they're hoping
>>that we'll confuse international politics with a soap
>>opera.
>>
>>We don't need respect. We need consistency and
>>determination. It's the mistake of someone who
>>doesn't have the know-how and stomach to run a country
>>(ANY country, let alone ours) to think that our
>>international politics have ANYthing to do with a
>>concept that only has any real meaning in
>>interpersonal relationships.
>
>Like Kerry said, you can be consistent and be wrong.
>I think that very nicely sums up George Bush. He
>isn’t far from the fundamentalist Christian mentality,
>which scares me a lot. He thinks his way is the right
>way, and he won’t listen to anyone tell him different.
> That’s all fine and good as long as he’s right about
>everything he thinks. Sadly, though, I think he is
>wrong about many things. Although he is consistent
>about the way he acts based on these beliefs, I think
>the beliefs themselves are completely wrong, and
>therefore the actions are consistent, but wrong.
>
>It’s worth noting that Hitler was consistent and
>determined, and he had the stomach to run a country.
>
>>I'm definitely voting for Bush after tonight.
>
>Then we’ll definitely cancel each other’s votes out.
>
>Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 