| Subject: OK, OK... |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 3/04 3:46am
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "He gave it a two-minute shot" on 10/ 3/04 2:14am
Ben:
>Are you visiting his web site, etc. to
>see if you can find the rest of the four-point plan,
>as well as his views and plans on various issues?
Yeah. His website doesn't offer much more detail than he offered during the debate. His "4 point plan" on the website was:
1) Launch and Lead a new Era of Alliances
2) Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
3) Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal
4) Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
OK - point 1 is still just, "Make friends."
Point 2? Totally content-free. Modernization cycles in the military occur regularly, and there's not much you can do to force them. And how is this any different than what Bush would do anyways?
Point 3... Yeah. Again, how is this any different than what Bush is doing?
Point 4 - no shit, Sherlock. Like I said in another post, we're already on the way to doing that. With or without Kerry, Bush, or any politician.
So, point one is "make friends" and the other 3 are things that either Bush is already doing, or that'll happen without Kerry anyways. I think my assessment based on what he said in the debate gave Kerry more credit than he deserved...
>What I hear you saying is, “Democrats never have a
>plan for anything,” rather than, “I have specifically
>researched John Kerry’s views and plans, and have
>found that he has not made any definite plans for
>anything."
I have specifically researched John Kerry's views and plans, and have found that he has not made any definite plans for anything.
Seriously. Unless there's another, more definitive source than www.johnkerry.com
It's actually really funny - as I was perusing Kerry's site, I learned things about Bush's plans that make me happier about my "lesser-of-two-evils" choice of voting for Bush.
>It almost seems that you are just
>anti-Democrat, and that it has little to do with John
>Kerry and what he personally brings to the table.
Well, I *am* anti-Democrat. Vehemently. The basis of the Democratic view of America and how it should be governed is rationally indefensible and ultimately harmful to us in the long run. I'd love to have a conversation about this...
But I also think that John Kerry has nothing to bring to the table.
>I don’t think he said, “Here is my four-point plan.”
>What he said sounded more to me like, “I have outlined
>a four-point plan.” In other words, if you are
>interested in it, I have outlined it elsewhere but
>can’t in this context.
Yeah - I did. It's not that impressive (see above).
>Nevertheless, can you concede that a “two minute
>tirade about what Bush was doing wrong” was an unfair
>caricaturization?
Yes, it wasn't a tirade. My characterization was unfair and colored by my opinions.
>Speaking of which, what is Bush’s plan for Iraq? Keep
>sending people over there until we have every citizen
>of the United States occupying their country? I’d
>like to hear Bush’s specific timetable and plan as
>well, to be fair.
Actually, to be fair, Bush's plan is this:
1) Build Iraqi armed forces able to handle security threats by itself
2) Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure
3) Don't leave until the Iraqis have their own country under control
He doesn't (as far as I can find) give an exit date, but at least he has concrete criteria for when the job's done. If you think about it, his criteria seem reasonable:
"When Iraq is able to govern itself without the danger of succumbing to tribal warfare or the tyrrany of terrorist groups (i.e. - when Iraq has established a secure foundation for being a democratic nation) we'll go."
Basically, he's said that we made this mess by disrupting the "status quo" under Saddam (the "status quo" being genocide and oppression) and that we won't leave until we've fixed the mess we've made.
>As you know, if Kerry were in
>office, he would have access to military planners and
>an entire cabinet that isn’t available to him now.
>It’s much easier for Bush to come up with a definitive
>plan because he has access to all the relevant
>information and all the people who are there in the
>country.
Wait - this sounds like "Kerry apologetics." You're saying that if Kerry is elected, he'll be able to come up with more definite plans. As you may or may not recall, President Bush said (on multiple occasions) the Kerry had access to the same intel that he did. If he can't be bothered to come up with the specifics of his plan now, why should we trust him to do it after he's been elected?
Kerry's prospective cabinet are all people he has access to NOW. They're the SAME people who'll be helping him if we elect him. Why couldn't he just ask them now?
>>Uhh... "get the rest of the world involved" isn't
>>specific with regards to the actual situation in Iraq.
>
>It is when your current president has ignored the rest
>of the world and proceeded unilaterally.
Ben, you've drunk the flaming-lib-purple-kool-aid. You're repeating unfounded propaganda. Ignored? We have to make the rest of the world happy at the expense of America's interests? I want a president who'll do the right thing regardless of how much France objects. I'll pass on the "popularest president in the world!!!" platform that Kerry's offering.
>> It's Democratic "AppeasementSpeak" So Kerry's
>>"One-point plan" is to:
>>
>>"Close the borders of Iraq."
>>
>>Brilliant. That'll solve everything. And that's what
>>bugs me, and why I assert that Kerry, when it comes to
>>world politics, is not equipped.
>
>I disagree. Given, Kerry would benefit from a cabinet
>of intelligent military planners to help him, but I
>think he’s an intelligent man with good ideas and the
>capacity to head our country effectively.
Again, HIS CABINET ARE PEOPLE HE HAS ACCESS TO RIGHT NOW. Can't he ask them NOW? (I'll give you the answer: He can.)
>I can’t believe how rabidly anti-Democrat you are.
>Did a Democrat kill your pet when you were little or
>something?
lol - OK - you've got me there. Honestly, yeah. I AM rabidly anti-democratic. Even if Bush started killing and eating Jew-babies (that's from a David Cross comedy bit), I'd still vote for him.
It's not even about Kerry and Bush - it's about the fundamental basis of the two parties' views on governance. Democratic policy is based on the Societal model, which has been empirically disproven repeatedly. The Republican model is based on the Economic model, which has a rationally defensible, scientifically supported basis.
>That’s all for tonight… I’ll address your other posts
>tomorrow if I have time. All I remember right now is
>that you compared me to a fundamentalist Christian,
>which wasn’t very cordial of you.
Yeah - you're right. I know it was rude, and I apologize. I guess I just wanted to be provocative. So my apologies.
I know you're a rational man, Ben - you and I have agreed on mostly every point that's been argued on your board, and I've arrived at my political beliefs in the same way I arrived at my spiritual and scientific beliefs - through my intellect.
It's hard to cut through the propaganda and the emotions when it comes to politics, though, and I understand that you and I disagree (for now).
I think that this conversation is especially charged right now because of the proximity of the election, and I think that, if we're not careful, we might end up spouting trash at one another before it's all over.
You're voting for Kerry, and I'm voting for Bush - that's fine. I'd just like to make sure we can continue this in a more restrained, controlled form after the elections.
But, for now, I think we should continue our vehement argument (cause it's fun) - just remember that I truly DO respect your judgement, and I think you're probably one of the most reasonable, rational people I know. Because I disagree with you, and think you're wrong about certain aspects of this argument has no effect on the high regard in which I hold your opinions and reasoning.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 