Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Conservatives: Also describable as well-meaning, basically realistic, self-disciplined (at least in theory), adult, in touch with reality.

Adult? Are you saying that people automatically become more conservative as they get older? I don't think that's true for everyone and for every issue.

I remember reading somewhere that men, as they grew older, tended to become more conservative and that women, as they grew older, tended to become more liberal.

They say that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Maybe a liberal is a conservative who's been divorced, lost her health insurance, and had to be a single Mom supporting her kids without much support from the father (not my situation, by the way -- I've had health insurance all my adult life).

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

[liberals are].... dreamy

aw, thanks HC. you're not too shabby yourself.


TK

Originally Posted by The Wonk

They say that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Maybe a liberal is a conservative who's been divorced, lost her health insurance, and had to be a single Mom supporting her kids without much support from the father (not my situation, by the way -- I've had health insurance all my adult life).

i think it was tom wolfe who said "if a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested." or something like that.


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by TrollKing

could you do me a favor and provide a link? i was raised by televisions and don't have the attention span to go a-hunting. :-)

Better yet, I'll repost my post [the original can be found on this thread, on page 8].

thanks, HC. those are good questions. i didn't see the actual press conference (i don't really watch tv until 9pm pacific, which basically excludes events like these), but i wanted to see what you wrote.


TK

For those of you who have not seen Gore's speech last night, go to CSpan.org and it is right at the top of most watched. It was a magnificent example of how an American patriot responds in a time of great peril.

At Moveon.org you can also find his speech on fear, which was also great. He puts Howard Dean in the shade.

Originally Posted by jadams

For those of you who have not seen Gore's speech last night, go to CSpan.org and it is right at the top of most watched. It was a magnificent example of how an American patriot responds in a time of great peril.

At Moveon.org you can also find his speech on fear, which was also great. He puts Howard Dean in the shade.

Do you think Kerry will take a que from Gore's "magnificent example of how an American patriot responds,", and begin to sound more like him? Do you think this would be a good idea on Kerry's part (ie., is this what most Americans want to hear?)?

Originally Posted by jadams

For those of you who have not seen Gore's speech last night, go to CSpan.org and it is right at the top of most watched. It was a magnificent example of how an American patriot responds in a time of great peril.

At Moveon.org you can also find his speech on fear, which was also great. He puts Howard Dean in the shade.

I read the script, and it rocked. I hope CSPAN replays it again over the weekend so I can get it on tape.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by The Wonk

They say that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Maybe a liberal is a conservative who's been divorced, lost her health insurance, and had to be a single Mom supporting her kids without much support from the father (not my situation, by the way -- I've had health insurance all my adult life).

i think it was tom wolfe who said "if a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested." or something like that.


TK

Could be. That wouldn't explain the gender gap, though, because women get mugged more than men and conversely, men get arrested more than women.

Do you think Kerry will take a que from Gore's "magnificent example of how an American patriot responds," and begin to sound more like him? Do you think this would be a good idea on Kerry's part (ie., is this what most Americans want to hear?)?

Well, I am barking mad and loved Dean because he spoke the truth, as did Gore last night. But MSNBC is already running clips of Gore side by side clips of Dean's scream and chortling about how Gore is "off his meds." So I doubt it is "what most Americans want to hear."

Apparently most Americans are on their meds, and prefer the mellowness of the Buffoon-in-chief who they say they would rather have to a barbeque than Kerry.

I am beginning to think that Kerry is crazy like a fox to let others speak out against Dumbo and drive the stake thru his heart, while Kerry delivers his quiet rational progressive non-threatening speeches. Run the brownshirts ragged chasing after Gore and others while he waits to deliver the coups de gras. It would be nice to think he is planning his campaign like a battle. It would be nice to have a president who knew how to fight a war for a change.

In any case it doesn't matter. This war will not be won by Kerry. It will be won by us in the trenches. This election is the first battle of many to come. And I am barking mad. I am donating money and time. I am political again for the first time in 30 years. The party is over for the Republican brownshirts. Because at long last, their excesses have awoken a sleeping dragon. The American Progressive Movement.

Hey, jadams, I might know you. I remember a person saying almost word-for-word the exact same things about "Republican brownshirts" awakening the "sleeping dragon" of the "American Progressive Movement".

I remember it like it was yesterday. It was back in 1984...

Originally Posted by jadams

Well, I am barking mad and loved Dean because he spoke the truth, as did Gore last night. But MSNBC is already running clips of Gore side by side clips of Dean's scream and chortling about how Gore is "off his meds." So I doubt it is "what most Americans want to hear."

The party is over for the Republican brownshirts. Because at long last, their excesses have awoken a sleeping dragon. The American Progressive Movement.

Hmm, I'm being told I'm a "Progressive," but I really didn't care for Gore's speech. :?

Anyway, thanks for your answer. Though I am curious about this "fight a war for a change." How would American Progressive, of your kind, fight a war for a change?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by jadams

Well, I am barking mad and loved Dean because he spoke the truth, as did Gore last night. But MSNBC is already running clips of Gore side by side clips of Dean's scream and chortling about how Gore is "off his meds." So I doubt it is "what most Americans want to hear."

The party is over for the Republican brownshirts. Because at long last, their excesses have awoken a sleeping dragon. The American Progressive Movement.

Hmm, I'm being told I'm a "Progressive," but I really didn't care for Gore's speech. :?

Anyway, thanks for your answer. Though I am curious about this "fight a war for a change." How would American Progressive, of your kind, fight a war for a change?

Ahhh Progressive. Now that makes sense. It was the Progressive Flava Flavo who first warned the conservative Plato to lay off laying the little boys, many years before Christ was even a wink in God's eye.
Because we must acknowledge that without progressives, us men would be in a bathhouse right now, arguing politics between backroom felatio.
These days the only male-male felating that goes on in congress is metaphorical, not instutional. Doesn't that make you a champion of progressive causes, you wily devil,you?

Adams, first off - I LOVED a Hitchiker's Guide to the Universe. Genius, yo. Next, I think we are all a little skittish here. Progressives are saying "If Kerry doesn't win, terrorist will rejoice because they know how to push Bush's buttons and lead us deeper into chaos, plus we have to listen to this ego maniac butcherer of the English language insult our intelligence for four more years. We are hoping that Kerry is like you say, waiting in the jungle for a clean shot, letting them run over Gore and Teddy Kennedy, and whomever they have a problem with.
What's great is that they spend so much time dissing liberals, and they're key argument is that liberals don't spend enuf time dissing Saddam Hussein. :? I know it makes no sense to me either.
But what if we're wrong. What if this is the best ol' Kerry can do.
Well Kerry is still doing pretty well against our incumbent. And the conservative news media is getting shaky. They're mad at everybody these days, especially The New York Times. They have some weird idea that The New York Times is to blame for souring public opinion.
They could internally combust over this stuff. Bush could too.
Imagine, suffering the same fate as your father - a one termer, like um..Buchanan, or Hoover..
Oh the embarassment! :lol: Isn't it great to watch them though.
But that's the thing. They like having George W. Bush, but they don't hate Kerry like we hate their leader. They don't have that fire. They're too comfortable.
They only see John Kerry as a liberal douch bag with frilly haircut from "Taxachusetts."
We see Bush as a prime example of the root of many of our problems. And I don't even want to pour salt on the bleeding canker sore of his running mate. The whole crew is postively putrid.
You've got the fire in your belly, and I have one in mine too, JA.
Don't let them frazzle you as they watch their four years of fame go up in smoke... :!:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Nonsense. They have extensive, albeit indirect, state backing. Afghanistan and Iraq were among the states who backed the overall network, and many of the 'charities' and other cash sources that al Queda and the rest of the network draw upon operate through various state connections.

If you really believe that that backing is not tacitly encouraged and aided by states or factions within state apparats, I've got some ocean front land in Nevada to sell you.

The CIA never claimed that al Qaeda was backed by Iraq. Read Woodward's book about how Cheney pushed hard for evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. They looked, they didn't find the evidence.

"Indirect" backing, "various state connections", "tacit encouragemen" and snide commentst are all arguments for obtaining political support here in the US. They don't establish the sort of direct connections that would allow the US to affect terrorist behavior by going after sponsors.

The proof in the pudding is in the outcome. If Iraq was really an important backer of al Qaeda, then the fall of the Iraqi regime in April 2003 would have serious degraded al Qaeda operations. This has not happened.

Afghanistan provided a territorial base to al Qaeda; in exchange, al Qaeda provided financial ssupport and troops to aid the Taliban. Afghanistan was not a state sponsor of al Qaeda; rather al Qaeda was a private sponsor of the Afghani state. Taking down the Taliban did force al Qaeda to change locations and disrupted their training facilities. It had no impact on their sources of support, and thus did not stop their operations.

Bin Laden and senior al Qaeda leadership are now believed to be in Pakistan. Do you believe that the Pakistan is now a state sponsor of al Qaeda, simply because al Qaeda is now located in their country? Much of al Qaeda's funding comes from Saudi citizens, and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Is Saudi Arabia a state sponsor of al Qaeda?

PS. Reporting about "liberal bias" in the media is a non-story and a waste of time. Obviously the networks that feel threatened will play it down, while the ones who seek to capitalize will play it up. It only betrays the true biases of the networks, and in the end, dirties all of their reputations as mudslingers who are too busy picking on each other to tell you something worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Nonsense. They have extensive, albeit indirect, state backing. Afghanistan and Iraq were among the states who backed the overall network, and many of the 'charities' and other cash sources that al Queda and the rest of the network draw upon operate through various state connections.

If you really believe that that backing is not tacitly encouraged and aided by states or factions within state apparats, I've got some ocean front land in Nevada to sell you.

The CIA never claimed that al Qaeda was backed by Iraq. Read Woodward's book about how Cheney pushed hard for evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. They looked, they didn't find the evidence.

"Indirect" backing, "various state connections", "tacit encouragemen" and snide commentst are all arguments for obtaining political support here in the US. They don't establish the sort of direct connections that would allow the US to affect terrorist behavior by going after sponsors.

The proof in the pudding is in the outcome. If Iraq was really an important backer of al Qaeda, then the fall of the Iraqi regime in April 2003 would have serious degraded al Qaeda operations. This has not happened.

Afghanistan provided a territorial base to al Qaeda; in exchange, al Qaeda provided financial ssupport and troops to aid the Taliban. Afghanistan was not a state sponsor of al Qaeda; rather al Qaeda was a private sponsor of the Afghani state. Taking down the Taliban did force al Qaeda to change locations and disrupted their training facilities. It had no impact on their sources of support, and thus did not stop their operations.

Bin Laden and senior al Qaeda leadership are now believed to be in Pakistan. Do you believe that the Pakistan is now a state sponsor of al Qaeda, simply because al Qaeda is now located in their country? Much of al Qaeda's funding comes from Saudi citizens, and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Is Saudi Arabia a state sponsor of al Qaeda?

Many of the hijackers recieved their training here in the United States. Does that mean that the United States is a state sponsor of al Qaeda?

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by jadams

For those of you who have not seen Gore's speech last night, go to CSpan.org and it is right at the top of most watched. It was a magnificent example of how an American patriot responds in a time of great peril.

At Moveon.org you can also find his speech on fear, which was also great. He puts Howard Dean in the shade.

Do you think Kerry will take a que from Gore's "magnificent example of how an American patriot responds,", and begin to sound more like him? Do you think this would be a good idea on Kerry's part (ie., is this what most Americans want to hear?)?

Kerry will just keep on droning, because he is an idiot.

You mean acting presidential???

I remember it like it was yesterday. It was back in 1984...

Weren't me Ash. Back in '84 I hated the liberals. I was mad at them for being stupid and self-destructive. That's the bad thing about ideologues, they got no common sense. But '84 was long, long ago. And these days it's the right wingers who have lost their minds. That's why their day is done, because they are self-destructing just like the left wing did back in the 60's and 70's.


I guess 30 years is about all folks can stand fools and fanatics before they start looking around for a new old idea. :wink:

Though I am curious about this "fight a war for a change." How would American Progressive, of your kind, fight a war for a change?

Well DA, I'm not sure I am an american progressive. I am hitching my wagon to their star because they are as enraged as I am. But I am a hawk. 911 was a wake up call for me. I realized we were in deep trouble because of our dependency on Saudi Arabia.

I was in favor of a more "proactive" foreign policy vis a vis the oil producing states. But not alone, I think it is in the world's best interest to work together to stabilize the region if possible. (NOT STEAL their oil, just keep their instability from destabilizing our markets.) But not without taxes, I know you have to pay for what you get. And not without soldiers! I certainly didn't want to send the national guard to stabilize Iraq (!!!!???), they had trouble stabilizing Miami.

Not too long after 911 I knew we needed to have a national initiative like the Manhattan Project to develop a clean, cheap, powerful, renewable alternative to oil. That costs money, and it will take time.

I knew we would need to go to war to buy time. That costs money and takes soldiers.

I knew we would need soldiers, at home to guard our ports and borders, and abroad to fight and rebuild. That means a national service. And a deep national commitment.

I knew we did not have that. We'll have to wait till the next attack for that. But I pray that these buffoons are not in the white house when it happens. They told the american people we would be there a year or two. Now, they are telling them that all will be better after June30. What a joke.

After June 30 we will be lucky if Iraq does not tip over into civil war, Iran enter the fray, and Osama overthrow the house of Saud. They will all feel emboldened to do their worst because the buffoons in the white house have made such a Giant Mess-o-potamia of their Imperial adventure.

As for how to fight a war for change: I am fighting in my own little trench. I have joined a political group and we have set up a media watch in our political club. I am emailing everyone about everything that strikes my political fancy, to let the world know this country is not populated by Rush Laimbrains. I am volunteering and sending money to those who I deem "worthy". More than anything, I am confronting and educating everyone I meet who is too busy to pay attention to what is happening. Not a day goes by that I do not rabble rouse, with friends and/or enemies. And I am continuing to try to educate myself about what is really happening. It is very hard to know the truth when so many are so busy lying to us.

My biggest disappointment is that Kerry is so cautious. For once, I wish we had someone who would lead us. But true change comes from the bottom in america. Sigh... I guess we should not shirk our responsibilities. What do you believe in DA? What do you do to make change happen?

Originally Posted by jadams

And I am continuing to try to educate myself about what is really happening. It is very hard to know the truth when so many are so busy lying to us.

My biggest disappointment is that Kerry is so cautious.

My friend said that to me just the other day. "Who do I trust? I don't know who to believe anymore.."
When it comes down to it who have you always trusted? Hopefully you still trust yourself.
Kerry does seem too cautious, yet at the same time, why should he be rabble rousing at this point in the game?
These have been bad months for the Bush campaign. His support is down the lowest its ever been. All Kerry had to do was air two ads and he's up in in 12 battleground states. So why should he work so hard for something he accomplishes easily?
Maybe he's just being efficient....

Originally Posted by Terminator X

These have been bad months for the Bush campaign. His support is down the lowest its ever been. All Kerry had to do was air two ads and he's up in in 12 battleground states. So why should he work so hard for something he accomplishes easily?

Maybe he's just being efficient....

Or cost effective. It doesn't matter so much what Kerry's poll ratings are this early, so long as it remains a contest. He is behind dollar wise. The tactics might be to keep it close until the final push comes, then spend the money when it counts.

Originally Posted by jadams

Though I am curious about this "fight a war for a change." How would American Progressive, of your kind, fight a war for a change?

Well DA, I'm not sure I am an american progressive. I am hitching my wagon to their star because they are as enraged as I am. But I am a hawk. 911 was a wake up call for me. I knew we would need to go to war to buy time.

Are the terrorists the ones who really "enrage" you, or are you merely filled with rage toward your own currently elected leaders here at home? Is America really the guilty party in this conflict? Or those we are fighting against? If Bush wins a big victory in November, who will be the real patriots, then: the American voters or the Terrorists?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Are the terrorists the ones who really "enrage" you, or are you merely filled with rage toward your own currently elected leaders here at home? Is America really the guilty party in this conflict? Or those we are fighting against? If Bush wins a big victory in November, who will be the real patriots, then: the American voters or the Terrorists?

If Bush wins a big victory in November, the real losers will be the American public. The real victors will be the energy lobby and the terrorists.
Bush, who was a lame duck president from January to September 2001, has nothing else to run on than appearing strong in the face of terror. He needs war to remain in office. The terrorists obviously love this. Both are driven by fantasies of imminent catastrophe and holy war.
If the terrorists use terror prior to the election, it will be used to keep Bush in office, a sort of Madrid logic, except backwards.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

There are lots of good questions they could have asked, questions that could be phrased respectfully and still be honest, uncowed journalism, and questions that could have shed light on real and serious considerations of security and national policy.

But they decided it would be more fun to spend all their available time trying to get him to apologize, with voiced references to Clarke, IIRC. :twisted:

Those were all good questions, HC. The press gaggle is too lazy to ask them. Pity.

No, Kiff, they aren't too lazy, they just have other priorities, which involve getting the facts and presenting them only tangentially.

Originally Posted by Terminator X

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Are the terrorists the ones who really "enrage" you, or are you merely filled with rage toward your own currently elected leaders here at home? Is America really the guilty party in this conflict? Or those we are fighting against? If Bush wins a big victory in November, who will be the real patriots, then: the American voters or the Terrorists?

If Bush wins a big victory in November, the real losers will be the American public. The real victors will be the energy lobby and the terrorists.
Bush, who was a lame duck president from January to September 2001, has nothing else to run on than appearing strong in the face of terror. He needs war to remain in office. The terrorists obviously love this. Both are driven by fantasies of imminent catastrophe and holy war.
If the terrorists use terror prior to the election, it will be used to keep Bush in office, a sort of Madrid logic, except backwards.

The terrorists want Kerry, or any President who will turn American decison-making power over to an international forum. They have nothing whatever to gain by Bush winning.

Originally Posted by jadams

For those of you who have not seen Gore's speech last night, go to CSpan.org and it is right at the top of most watched. It was a magnificent example of how an American patriot responds in a time of great peril.

At Moveon.org you can also find his speech on fear, which was also great. He puts Howard Dean in the shade.

Gore is not a patriot. That speech is not compatible with patriotism. As one highly decorated vetaran in Congress said, it bordered on traitorous.