How embarrassing

[Icemaster]

Originally posted by singpilot
My thoughts and feelings exactly. Maybe now all the recent Pelican joiners that were thrown off of the other boards can go somewhere else with their vile and we can get back to reasoned discussions by caring members of this board.

Thank you Sing....

[cool_chick]

Awwww, where's the love?

[tabs]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Tabs, I have a thick skin. Nothing some stranger says to me in the form of insults matters. Plus, you know what they say.....

opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one!
Winston Churchill said you get the government you deserve. The right has it...now they shall pay the consequences, good or bad.

You don't need to get defensive..no insult was intended as a matter of fact the oposite was intended...and I was just stating the facts...

As far as government goes, at times I wished Kerry on America, but had to stop and realize if America went to He11 because of him I would be in the same boat...we all are in the same boat right and left...

I imagine this time around some of the bitterness towards GW will disapate because the election was so clear cut...

[cool_chick]

I dunno tabs.

He said today:

I won political capitol and I will push my agenda. If the dems are with me great, if not...they will be left behind. He basically lied to me yesterday when he said he would work with the democrats. That's not a good thing to not want to work and compromise on the best solution.

[trj911]

The youth vote in the past has averaged about 17% and that was the number this time also. I don't know why, I guess they think they have better things to do.

You better get on board or you'll be left behind too!

[tabs]

Cool with such thick skin U seem upset that a Politician lied to U... it's all part of the game...

GW is going to take his ideas/plans and is going to get them implemented....regardless...he feels he has a mandate from the American people if not Gawd..

[tabs]

My hope is that he puts Pickering in as Secratary of State...he is one pragmatic SOB... whose motto is...."I would rather deal with it than have it bite me....." which btw is exactly what my motto has been since I've been 20 years old.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by tabs
Cool with such thick skin U seem upset that a Politician lied to U... it's all part of the game...

GW is going to take his ideas/plans and is going to get them implemented....regardless...he feels he has a mandate from the American people if not Gawd..

I want to believe in him, I really do. I'm trying. But....

Question, can't congress force him to work on the best solution? Do you see him getting everything he wants, just the way he wants, even if it's not the best solution?

[tabs]

With Pickering in...it would show that Bush has pulled back from the neocon position...I certainly hope Bush has learned that the neocon way of doing business doesn't work all that well and that he GW loses too much political capital when he listens to them...If it were not for Irawreck Bushs record in office would be looking pretty good and would have won by a HUGH margin over Kerry instead of a measely 3%. Remember his approval rating after 911...it wouldn't have bin disapated.

[tabs]

well the Congress does have a survival instinct about them...GW has faced his LAST election and will now do whatever he thinks is right without any real political consequences...the system is the only thing that can keep him in check.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Cool_chick If you want to believe that you're smarter than 52% of the country, I'll give you that. Intellectually, you're just about the 50th percentile of people I've experienced. Be proud of that if you must. I imagine third party kudos involving your mental prowess are scant.

You want distortion? You're trying to pull a colossal one.

This is what I said:

If you call "fear" putting forward Kerry's record of complacency on defense, so be it. The silence on his Senate record re: defense was deafening in the mainstream media.

However, your snide reply did not respond to what I said, it responded to other things said by other people about Kerry's record. I'm assuming, given your incalculable self-esteem, that you intentionally changed what I had written in to what you wanted to respond to -- which itself is a distortion.

You start with "The Bush campaign bases..." Hmm... did I mention the Bush campaign? Did I mention Zell Miller's litany of weapons systems, or any of that? No. Did I bring up S. 3189 (1990), H.R. 5803 (1990) or H.R. 2126 (1995)? No. Nor did I implicate them.

Nor was any one weapons system or litany therof what I was referring to, but that was what you felt you could respond to -- by distorting what I'd said into a snippy tirade having nothing to do with what I'd written. One that winds up not disproving what I'd said, incidentally, but by using an instance involving Cheney, essentially concluding, "Well Cheney's a pansy too." Brilliant is exactly not the word for that "tactic."

Nor did you touch, for an instant, on the media's cavernous silence about Kerry's voting record on matters defense. Hmmm... so you had one non-responsive comment on one-half of what I'd typed, ignoring not only 1/2 of what I'd typed but 90% of the actual issue at hand to parrot back some vapid Kerry defense ("well he didn't just vote against those weapons systems, he voted against everything!!!!) and anti-Cheney tripe. Yeeeaahh ... not impressed.

I mean, you couldn't be so imperceptive, uninformed and doltish to have focused on only one weapons system issue subset in the whole spectrum of Kerry's Senate defense record and media silence thereon, could you? No, methinks you had no response, in toto, to what I wrote, so you distorted it to fit one micro-issue.

I have to assume that this witless strategem has worked for you in the past... so who is it that you really smart people hang around with that's fooled by such puerile tactics? Me and Halliburton have some land to sell them.

But, as my adversaries here will attest, I have no lasting grudge against even the 52%ers of the intellectual spectrum, so herewith, a primer. Let's begin. Welcome to Pelican.

The Center for Security Policy ("promoting international peace through American strength"), covering more than 75 votes over the past decade gave JK one of the lowest ratings of any Senator. In 1995, he got a 5 out of 100. In 1997, het got a zero out of 100. Yes, CSP is conservative, but so what? They're still ranking based on commitment to American strength, left or right of the aisle. Not a ringing endorsement for defense, whatever side JK's on.

Oh, yeah, and the liberal advocacy group Americans for Democratic Action ranked JK as one of the five most dovish or liberal members on foreign policy. That would no doubt be a badge of honor, whereas essentially the same conclusion from the VRWC CSP is a dismissable partisan hack job, I know.

A few other JK Congressional career highlights:

When first running in 1984, he explained he was firmly against the B-1, B-2, AH-64, Patriot, F-15, F-14A/D, AV-8B, Aegis cruisers and Trident. This is not a single system buried in a trillion dollar budget -- this was him, avowing he was against these specific things. You do see the difference here, yes? He did it to secure the endorsement of a peacenik (likely Soviet-funded) group, but he did it nonetheless. Actually, he initially held out and said he liked Trident, but they told him if he didn't act to cancel Trident, they'd support another candidate. He caved. Caved is too small a word, actually.

JK derided Reagan's build-ups as "bloated" and "without any relevancy to the threat". This was at a time when Sam Nunn, Al Gore, Norman Dicks, Sonny Montgomery and Les Aspin agreed with Reagan. JK was out-there way back then; rabidly anti-defense when contemporary and future luminaries of his own party were pro-D.

JK opposed NATO-approved build-up of missiles in Europe, instead preferring a one-sided "nuclear freeze."

Just go back and read that one again. Let that show of fortitude and commitment to parity, security and defense sink in................................................ ........... OK, move on.

He opposed invasion of Grenada, calling it a "bully's show of force."

He opposed support for guerillas in Nicaragua, traveling to Managua to cut a deal with "bully" Daniel Ortega to thwart Reagan.

He opposed Desert Storm and use of force to liberate Kuwait.

He called National Missile Defense "fantasy". THE program , credited by former Soviet ministers as having crippled their economy and ended the USSR. "Fantasy." Yeah, there's a visionary. Oh, and the fifth successful test (and third in a row?) of missile defense ("hitting a bullet with a bullet") happened a coupla' months ago.

1991 - voted to cut defense spending by 2%. Only 21 other senators voted with him and the cut was defeated.

1991 -- voted to cut over $3bn from defense, shifting the funds to social programs; only 27 senators joined him.

1992 -- voted to cut $6bn from defense; R's and D's together blocked this attempt.

1993 -- voted against increased defense spending for military pay raise.

1993 -- JK introduced a plan to cut the number of submarines, reduce tactical fighter wings, terminate coastal mine-hunting ship program, force retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year AND reduce the number of light infantry units to one. He could find no co-sponsors for this bill -- it was HIS, all HIS, and it was DOA.

1995 -- JK voted to freeze defense spending for 7 (!) years, cutting over $34bn from defense; only 27 senators joined him.

1996 -- JK introduced a bill to cut defense spending by $6.5bn. Again, no co-sponsors to be found for this brave expression of defense of America -- it was HIS, all HIS and it too was DOA.

1996 -- JK voted again to freeze defense spending for 7 years, at a cost of $34.8bn; the resolution was rejected 28-71.

And yet, given ALL of the foregoing, he wanted to be seen as a tough, pro-defense Senator. Why, then, in his 55 minute acceptance speech ("reporting for duty!!") did he barely mention his 20 years in the Senate, let alone any of his pro-defense positions?

Why, which was more the thrust of my earlier quote -- it was obtuse, I know, which explains how it completely evaded your ... um ... "response" did the media give him a free pass on the foregoing? Why was he not questioned, interrogated, grilled on it? I mean, hey if you want that kind of a record in your President, OK. I disagree, but that's what you want. What is important to me is, after having accumulated such a record, he wanted nothing to do with it -- he didn't mention it, and he was conveniently let off the hook about it my our media.

When asked about his record, rather than pointing to accomplishments on defense, he replied with misdirection, accusing his critics of attacking his patriotism, claiming "No one is going to question my commitment to the defense of our nation." and "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam [waitaminute you mean he served in Vietnam? For Four months, Thirty Years Ago? Why didn't he mention this?!?] have against those of us who did." Way to give us the specifics, JK; good response, full of valid information and detailed rebuttal to the critique of your record of defense weakness.

Then again, c_c, you probably think those are smashing good answers, being a fan yourself of misdirection and obfuscation -- and an obvious practictioner of the dem tactic to so act while shrieking that the other side is the one doing it.

Read some Techweenie or Lynn for a few weeks. Study. Practice. Your posts indicate you're not even close to ready for these leagues yet.

I don't expect you to read this -- not for the same deigning to my humble intellect and ego reasons you implied earlier, but b/c it's too long.

JP

[tabs]

The only thing GW now fears is what History will say about him...

[Overpaid Slacker]

James - thanks for the heads up about this; I'd abandoned this, um, thread, about the point it seemed like these people believed that for some reason I should give a f*ck about their disappointment or the resultant impending departure.

You wanna leave? Go. Buh-bye -- why do we want you here anyway?

This is not purgative intolerance: this is not "I want you to go" b/c you're a Democrat; this is honestly "why on Earth do I want you to stay if you're so ready to leave b/c of an election disappointment?" Are you that important that I should care? Are we losing a national treasure? Really, if that's how you are, then what do you add by your presence? Certainly the subtle, nuanced minds can discern the distinction I'm getting at.

If this election, this loss for you (somehow it's a loss some of you have personalized, but you're more the "therapeutic culture" than I am) so distresses and disheartens you that you want to leave -- go. We'll be stronger for your absence.

Fleeing in a time of adversity or after having suffered a setback is about as un-American a character trait as there is.

For you syllogistically-impaired out there, I'm not saying it's anti-American to be upset at the loss of your guy, I'm saying it's entirely contrary what America is about (un-American, v. anti-American, capice?) to want to run from the issue -- especially if running involves leaving America, your home.

I don't want our guys fighting and dying to protect your right to b!tch if you want to leave; nor their blood spilled so you can indulge your petulant tantrums. Put your money where your mouth is and go. You can still p!ss and moan about America from abroad -- many others do, right here on this very board. You'll be different, just like everyone else.

Sorry for having to be so literal, and pedantic about the last few paragraphs for those of you that got it right away... it's a result of the a surplus of caution in setting forth EXACTLY what I'm getting at, prompted by the manifestly evident limitations of the hostess of this thread.

JP

[tabs]

OPS....Geezus another marathon post...didn't you learn anything from taking that Readers Digest course in editing....

See Coolie thats how it is done...with subtelety and deft...

[tabs]

U know Coolie the reason I jumped on U so quick was the fact that I spotted that you know how to work the crowd...and I wanted to make sure you didn't play me for a sucker...

[Overpaid Slacker]

Tabby, in the name of all that's holy, get a buddy to write you a Stratera scrip.

Readers' Digest course ... ya cut me deep Tabs, ya cut me real deep.

"daft", Tabs, not "deft" in this case.

JP

[cool_chick]

I just love political discussion. But we've become so divided and hateful towards each other anymore, i don't know what's going to bring us back.

I mean, i heard people were flattening tires on election day (the dems did that) and glass windows being broken (I think republicans)...what the hell have we become?

[tabs]

The Roman I mean American empire...

[mjshira]

if the President governed as the world wished he would, we never would have done many things which, had we not done, would have left the world, and indeed many of those countries which you view as having important opinions and I am not sure, but it seems that you might grant them a veto on our potential actions (global test), less well off than they are today. here are just a few things we might have not done:

1. ended WW2 with an unconditional surrender

2. confronted the communist world domination plot with resolve (evil empire comment by Reagan viewed as wrong by the left) and thus defining the conflict in terms that other nations could understand

3. carried out the Marshall Plan (rebuilt Japan, Europe)

4. supported England and Russia with the lend lease program

Having lived in Europe I was struck by how those that I knew there, successful in banking, felt the need to apologize or excuse themselves of that success. We in American are at a crossroads with just this issue. People, normally on the left, seem to have similar feelings of a need to excuse themselves for the blessings and the fruits of HARDWORK.

When those in the world community question our direction, we might consider what their vested interests are before jumping to excuse ourselves and placating those whose interests are often, if only secretly, diametrically opposed to our own.

So I ask those of you who care enough to post here, debate an important issue such as this election, are you embarrassed? Are you worried what the French, Germans, Swiss and others think of us?

Or are you, like me, resolved in a faith that our nation, while divided over some issues, must stand in defiance of the worlds latest tyrannical force, terrorism.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Clowd
I know exactly how you feel..

if anyone asks, I'm from Canada.

Go home!

Randy