the Democrats and the fraudulent coaltion

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Is it not a bad idea from a foreign policy perspective to directly insult many this nations friends and allies?

Worked for Bush

 

[MonkeyK]

It's not fraudulent, it's just broad but not deep.

As I have said before, we subscribed to the "a baby can drown in 2 inches of water" theory of international coallition building.

 

[Rilescat]

Originally posted by: X-Man
I keep waiting for them to say what they're going to do, rather than blame Bush for everything.

I'd vote for someone other than Bush if any of them seemed to present any better ideas on how to do things, but it seems like the idea so far is just to throw more mud than the next guy and hope it works.

Throw mud and raise taxes. Standard procedure.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Were any of the candidates at the debate yesterday disaparaging specific countries?

Yes - the US. I believe in the 2000 campaign the Democrats blasted Bush for talking down the economy(which was already headed south), yet now they blast away while the economy is in recovery mode. Yeah, they sure did have some disparaging remarks about THIS country last night and throughout this campaign. Also they keep spouting how this country is such a disaster, and that we have no allies now...etc etc. They are just blowing smoke because the only way they think they can win is by trashing this country and saying how bad things are. Things aren't that bad, and they only seem to want to say that they are against what Bush will do instead of presenting what they want to do. We keep getting the yapping, but no details.

Time for some substance - not the shrill "I'm a better hater that you are" rhetoric(which I found disgusting last night).

Aww, the Democrats get mean and the Republicans can't handle it. I'll get Justin Timberlake to cry you a river. :brokenheart:

I like how you equate their attacks on the Bush administration to attacks on THIS country. That's some nice good ol' fashioned nationalist/fascist/jingoist (take your pick) rhetoric. If you'd like to believe the Administration == this country then go ahead, I can't help you. But I didn't want to let that observation go unnoticed.

I already made the startling point in this thread how one can actually take the "personal responsibility" (a great CONSERVATIVE value that has gone missing in the Republican party) to educate oneself to the candidates' solutions for existing problems. They exist and are quite easy to find. Like I said, these debates degenerate into nothing more than a sound bite contest. That's the sad state of our national media (its not liberal, its not conservative, its sensationalistic) today.

If you want to base your judgement on a 90 minute debate/argument and coverage from one slanted wing of the media, feel free. But saying that the candidates are attacking THIS country is ludicrous, ignorant, and hateful...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If the war was based on a false premise (it was), then the administration and those who supported it are open to criticism. Seemingly, anyone could become a member of "Club Coalition" just by saying it agreed with the US in principle. Many of these countries need a bone tossed to them, and if the US wants to use their name when it is at no risk to them when they might benefit from foreign aid, why not?

Actually I have no problem with them doing that, since it is fairly transparent, and I have no problem when someone calls them on it.

If they are insulted? Life is tough, ain't it? When someone does something worth talking about, then talked about it is.

 

[Gaard]

Could you explain to me what he meant by 'fraudulent coalition'? I didn't watch the debates (had to get up at 2:00 am), but is it possible that he was just expressing the same opinion that countless millions of other people share...that the 'coalition of the willing' is wrong. IOW. are you 100% sure he was dissing other countries and not just saying that the coalition was wrong?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Were any of the candidates at the debate yesterday disaparaging specific countries?

Yes - the US. I believe in the 2000 campaign the Democrats blasted Bush for talking down the economy(which was already headed south), yet now they blast away while the economy is in recovery mode. Yeah, they sure did have some disparaging remarks about THIS country last night and throughout this campaign. Also they keep spouting how this country is such a disaster, and that we have no allies now...etc etc. They are just blowing smoke because the only way they think they can win is by trashing this country and saying how bad things are. Things aren't that bad, and they only seem to want to say that they are against what Bush will do instead of presenting what they want to do. We keep getting the yapping, but no details.

Time for some substance - not the shrill "I'm a better hater that you are" rhetoric(which I found disgusting last night).

Aww, the Democrats get mean and the Republicans can't handle it. I'll get Justin Timberlake to cry you a river. :brokenheart:

I like how you equate their attacks on the Bush administration to attacks on THIS country. That's some nice good ol' fashioned nationalist/fascist/jingoist (take your pick) rhetoric. If you'd like to believe the Administration == this country then go ahead, I can't help you. But I didn't want to let that observation go unnoticed.

I already made the startling point in this thread how one can actually take the "personal responsibility" (a great CONSERVATIVE value that has gone missing in the Republican party) to educated oneself to the candidates' solutions for existing problems. They exist and are quite easy to find. Like I said, these debates degenerate into nothing more than a sound bite contest. That's the sad state of our national media (its not liberal, its not conservative, its sensationalistic) today.

If you want to base your judgement on a 90 minute debate/argument and coverage from one slanted wing of the media, feel free. But saying that the candidates are attacking THIS country is ludicrous, ignorant, and hateful...

You are a fool if you think I haven't combed every single one of their sites You also don't seem to understand the argument - I'm not "mad" about the attacks on Bush - I'm mad about their relentless bad mouthing of our Nation - and you can't tell me that they haven't.

And no - it isn't a crying thing - it's a hypocracy thing and you can keep Justin because you'll need him to cry you a river when you loose next year. They are doing the same thing that people accused Bush of doing when he was running, but I guess it's OK now though

I base my comments not only on the 90 minute debate, but also the ads they have been running - the hatred they are spewing at their campaign stops, all of it.

Hey Monsta - aren't you helping Dean? Ask him why he's going to raise taxes by almost $2200 on a Family that makes $70K. (J.F. Kerry said it - not me)

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You are a fool if you think I haven't combed every single one of their sites You also don't seem to understand the argument - I'm not "mad" about the attacks on Bush - I'm mad about their relentless bad mouthing of our Nation - and you can't tell me that they haven't.

And no - it isn't a crying thing - it's a hypocracy thing and you can keep Justin because you'll need him to cry you a river when you loose next year. They are doing the same thing that people accused Bush of doing when he was running, but I guess it's OK now though

I base my comments not only on the 90 minute debate, but also the ads they have been running - the hatred they are spewing at their campaign stops, all of it.

Hey Monsta - aren't you helping Dean? Ask him why he's going to raise taxes by almost $2200 on a Family that makes $70K. (J.F. Kerry said it - not me)

I don't see them bad mouthing of our country at all. They pretty much consistently blame everything on Bush and the Republicans , never on the country or the American people.

Its been said that Dean's success isn't due to his attacks on the President (since they all do that), but because he makes people feel empowered - that they can make a difference with their personal political activism.

As for the tax "increase", its amusing to see that you like "JF" Kerry now that he's fighting for a tax cut. I'm declaring that I'm for tax cuts. Does that make you drool for me too? I'm not going to pretend I understand the claims of what will increase net taxes and what will not. Dean's point is that the Bush tax cuts as a whole increases state and local taxes, thus negating the effect of the federal tax cuts on the middle class, and actually increasing the tax burden on the middle class (primarily through local property taxes which I can personally attest to have increased dramatically in suburban NJ). Dean's logic goes: Repeal tax cut -> relieve budget states' budget crisis -> lower local and state taxes -> less burden on the middle class.

Next time I run into Dean I'll tell him to stop bad mouthing all those thousands of people that come to his campaign stops, just for you sir.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I don't see them bad mouthing of our country at all. They pretty much consistently blame everything on Bush and the Republicans , never on the country or the American people.

Its been said that Dean's success isn't due to his attacks on the President (since they all do that), but because he makes people feel empowered - that they can make a difference with their personal political activism.

As for the tax "increase", its amusing to see that you like "JF" Kerry now that he's fighting for a tax cut. I'm declaring that I'm for tax cuts. Does that make you drool for me too? I'm not going to pretend I understand the claims of what will increase net taxes and what will not. Dean's point is that the Bush tax cuts as a whole increases state and local taxes, thus negating the effect of the federal tax cuts on the middle class, and actually increasing the tax burden on the middle class (primarily through local property taxes which I can personally attest to have increased dramatically in suburban NJ). Dean's logic goes: Repeal tax cut -> relieve budget states' budget crisis -> lower local and state taxes -> less burden on the middle class.

Next time I run into Dean I'll tell him to stop bad mouthing all those thousands of people that come to his campaign stops, just for you sir.

1. I'll just give you one quote that I quickly found and it wasn't from the candidates but rather from Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick- chairwoman of the CBCI's debate committee: "The country is in shambles, a lot of things need to happen, and a lot of people feel that those candidates who are now a part of the House or Senate haven't done all they can do to help the country. So that's why I really believe that both Dean and Wesley Clark are faring better right now,"
I'm sure I could find many many more references to this sort of thing.

2. Dean is a hater - people like him because it allows them to associate with hate.

3. I've liked Kerry more than the rest of them for quite some time. I was pleasantly surprised he attacked Dean on the Tax issue though. What you and Dean don't understand is that Bush's tax-cuts did NOT increase your state taxes or your local property taxes. The STATES are responsible for that - Not the FED. I've heard people whine about unfunded mandates - well lets see them - which mandates did Bush "unfund" or push on the states?
Also if you think that by Dean repealing all the tax cuts it'll magically lower your property taxes - I got some prime "coastal" realestate in Florida to sell you

4. Give him a kiss for me too

CkG