What do Conservatives say when they think no one is listening?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Not many do.
While I agree that Kerry did a terrible job of outlining an alternate vision for Iraq, it's still hard to comprehend a vote for Bush in '04, out of sheer incompetence.
It's still amazing to me that a guy like this - quite arguably our worst President ever, and certainly in modern times - is a 2-termer...
Rumsfeld can no longer cause anyone's death. He will have to answer for all of the deaths he did cause, at the appointed time, but that time is no longer of any interest to me
Cheney however, may still cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands by bombing Iran.
Let's see, the life of one man up against the lives of hundreds of thousands?
Oh yeah, I'll dance if he drops tonight. You better believe it.
I mostly agree, I voted Libertarian. But that doesn't change that even before that election he wasn't one of the most popular Presidents. Whomever was running that campaing for Kerry needs to have their brain checked for prion disease.
It was not the vision of those against this war since before it started. You know, the morally superior ones? I think we all prayed he was playing to the right of center in order not to get smeared with "SOFT ON MURDER", as the R's are wont to do, and would get us out quicker than bush would.
Gosh, I wonder if he would have gotten us out quicker? What do you think Damo? Think there would have been a surge? Or think, with the majority now supporting it, we might have had a drawdown?
It's a stumper.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Harry Potter sells tons too. They are for those that don't really like to think much, but be entertained. Coulter is the pablum for the conservatives that don't really like to think, as is Savage, another best seller.
Then again, there are those intellectual giants on the left like David Corn and Al Franken.
The depth of many on both sides is what is leading to the serious problems we are seeing through society and congress. It's all soundbites, ridicule, and rigidity of thought.
uscitizen
Villified User
I have told you I do not listen to the talking head shows, libs or cons.
The lexicon after the election was to ask Bush to follow the Iraq report, which recommended a surge on Baghdad to allow the Government to come to an agreement that would allow us to leave earlier.
I think Kerry would have done that. He was constantly speaking of the report.
So yes, I do believe that there would be a surge.
See, this is what the faux equivalence crowd does.
Find one thing Corn and Franken have ever said that in any way compares for calling for more terrorist attacks on NYC, AFTER 9/11 already took place? Find one thing they have ever said that compares with saying that the 9/11 widows were happy their husbands were dead. That we need to start killing liberals because they had to understand they can be killed.
Give me a break ok?
It's all hindsight, but anyone would be hardpressed to argue that Kerry would have vetoed either of the withdrawal timeline bills passed by Congress.
Kerry lost the election when he was thrown that softball of a question in an outdoor press conference, "Knowing what you know now, would you have still voted for the resolution?", and he answered "Yes."
He tried to correct after that & go anti-war, but it was way too late...
Kerry lost the election when he was thrown that softball of a question in an outdoor press conference, "Knowing what you know now, would you have still voted for the resolution?", and he answered "Yes."
He tried to correct after that & go anti-war, but it was way too late...
First of all, knock it off with that 9/11 report bullshit. They specifically told bush it wasn't a "fruit salad". He wanted to escalate and used that report as a cover. He did shit all else about that report.
Second of all, if you believe Kerry would have surged at the point in time when bush did, when all polls showed a super-majority against it, and for starting to pull down our troop levels, you're delusional. Now, I understand it makes you feel better to believe so. But what it doesn't do, is make it remotely believable or true.
No, I think he would have done it earlier, hence the "What he said, but with 10K more troops" stuff.
Seriously, I definitely think there would have been a surge in Iraq.
Maybe at the very beginning of his administration, though I doubt it. But, we'd be pulling out now. Onceler made a great point. President Kerry would not have vetoed that legislation.
To most Americans the life of one, is worth far more than the life of many.
Thus, if Dick Cheney is going to bomb Iran, and kill hundreds of thousands, and I say I hope Cheney drops dead, I'd call that a bargain, then I'm a left-wing crazy.
But, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, not effecting you because they're not white, or they're not here, or they're not Americans, or, they're just that most unfathomable of all things "the other", what does that make a person?
Something I never want to be.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Ah, but the rights of the few, being oppressed should be worth those of good morals. Take the slavery issue of the civil war, to me that was a cause worth dying for. On the other hand, keeping the South in the Union? Not so sure, Lincoln knew which would get the troops.
I have no idea what this has to do with bombing Iran. Are you proposing that the Iranian people are oppressed and that we can free them by bombing them and murdering their children?
uscitizen
Villified User
I agree Darla, a life is a life, whether it is a CEO, "trailer trash", a celebrety, or someone in the middle east.
If I know them personally it is of course a bigger hit....
But in the end it is all the same.
And I sort of got the impression that Jesus felt the same way....
If I know them personally it is of course a bigger hit....
But in the end it is all the same.
And I sort of got the impression that Jesus felt the same way....