|
Post by noticing on Nov 4, 2004 0:26:23 GMT -5
A difficult task for a woman who behaves as she accuses Teresa Kerry....someone in a perpetual state of PMS. Now I know what they mean by "ugly american".
|
|
|
Post by Correct on Nov 4, 2004 2:41:39 GMT -5
How was any of that a threat to the US? You again bring up 9/11 as some reason to attack Iraq. How in anyway is 9/11 related to Iraq and what did the attack accomplish that changed that problem? You ate asserting that had we invaded Iraq earlier there would not have been a WTC attack? Of course we had support. We were acting with the support of the UN. Why did the UN think we should invade? Because Iraq had invaded another nation when it was not threatened. Much like the US did when it invaded Iraq. You seem to be forgetting that the US was acting within the framework of another international agreement it was part of - NATO. The level of support depends only upon the legality of the action. We sign and spport international agreements that prevent countries from attacking without justification. It is hard to justofy the actions of the US when it violates the agreements that it has proposed and ratified. Or could it be that they don't like him because he has shown that he frequently makes the wrong decision? His faith does little to comfort me. Making decisions for the US based on the narrow beliefs of a single person is not a sound course of action. How would you feel if his belisfs were for a different God? Think about the danger that the US was placed in while Reagan waited for an astrologer to make sure he was making the right decisions. Crititcism is not hatred. Compare the support after the invasion of Afghanistan with the support following the invasion of Iraq and get back to us.
|
|
|
Post by Correct on Nov 4, 2004 2:45:52 GMT -5
YOU don't believe it was a threat -- but I'm sorry, with Saddam's history (and the history of all brutal tyrants that have been ignored all too long by the world), he was definitely NOT an element that could be trusted. How was any of that a threat to the US? You again bring up 9/11 as some reason to attack Iraq. How in anyway is 9/11 related to Iraq and what did the attack accomplish that changed that problem? You are asserting that had we invaded Iraq earlier there would not have been a WTC attack? Of course we had support. We were acting with the support of the UN. Why did the UN think we should invade? Because Iraq had invaded another nation when it was not threatened. Much like the US did when it invaded Iraq. You seem to be forgetting that the US was acting within the framework of another international agreement it was part of - NATO. The level of support depends only upon the legality of the action. We sign and support international agreements that prevent countries from attacking without justification. It is hard to justify the actions of the US when it violates the agreements that it has proposed and ratified. Or could it be that they don't like him because he has shown that he frequently makes the wrong decision? His faith does little to comfort me. Making decisions for the US based on the narrow beliefs of a single person is not a sound course of action. How would you feel if his beliefs were for a different God? Think about the danger that the US was placed in while Reagan waited for an astrologer to make sure he was making the right decisions. Crititcism is not hatred. Compare the support after the invasion of Afghanistan with the support following the invasion of Iraq and get back to us.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 12:39:48 GMT -5
Wrong! In the US Senate he is on the extreme left. Except for a few token issues, he is as left as they come…
Yes… token issues…
Can you name them?
There will always be people who think other people are “too extreme”… that doesn’t prove anything.
We need to judge where a person is on the political scale based on where the majority of people stand… for example, one of my former coworkers viewed CNN as a conservative network based on the fact he is on the extreme left (socalist).
EXACTLY! From YOUR point of view…. But we are talking about America and where the average American is on the political scale.. and based on that, Kerry is on the extreme left.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 12:52:51 GMT -5
Political science professor Keith T. Poole (University of California):
Quote: Is Senator John Kerry a Liberal? Technically, Yes. Is he the most liberal member of the current or any Senate since the end of World War II? No. Is he an extreme Liberal? (sic) No. In fact he is a bit to the left of the mean of the Senate Democrats serving since 1937.
I rest my case!
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 12:59:21 GMT -5
Political science professor Keith T. Poole (University of California): Quote: Is Senator John Kerry a Liberal? Technically, Yes. Is he the most liberal member of the current or any Senate since the end of World War II? No. Is he an extreme Liberal? (sic) No. In fact he is a bit to the left of the mean of the Senate Democrats serving since 1937.I rest my case! So all is ok because he isn't the most extreme liberal that has ever served in the Senate? Give me a break..
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 13:04:30 GMT -5
You give me a break Bryan.
If I had to be convinced by you or a polical science professor on this subject, who do you think I would believe...
Right!
If you want to believe Kerry is a commie, by all means do, but he's not in general politics.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 13:23:45 GMT -5
If I had to be convinced by you or a polical science professor on this subject, who do you think I would believe... You're smarter then this bert... I know you are... I mean come on, use basic logic... You are saying that it is more logical to believe a political science professor over me... fine... I understand why you would say that... However, what you are forgetting is the fact other political science professor could say the exact opposite.. Then who are you going to believe? No matter what you believe, no matter where you stand, and no matter what you're fighting for, you will always be able to quote some noname professional to prove your point.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 13:35:33 GMT -5
You're smarter then this bert... I know you are... I mean come on, use basic logic... You are saying that it is more logical to believe a political science professor over me... fine... I understand why you would say that... However, what you are forgetting is the fact other political science professor could say the exact opposite.. Then who are you going to believe? No matter what you believe, no matter where you stand, and no matter what you're fighting for, you will always be able to quote some noname professional to prove your point. I think a political science professor would know more about how to define extreme left than you or me. If you can find a political science professor that would state Kerry is an Extreme Liberal, bring him on and we'll talk some more. I don't think you define Extreme Left based on how the rest of the politicians are at any given place and time. 'Extreme' strictly means holding views that can't get any more radical one way or the other. Kerry doesn't fit that description. Besides that, the original question was why I supported John Kerry when he is an extreme liberal, but the thing is he's an extreme liberal in american eyes according to the poster, not in my eyes, or in the professor's eyes;)
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Nov 4, 2004 14:24:03 GMT -5
Political science professor Keith T. Poole (University of California): Quote: Is Senator John Kerry a Liberal? Technically, Yes. Is he the most liberal member of the current or any Senate since the end of World War II? No. Is he an extreme Liberal? (sic) No. In fact he is a bit to the left of the mean of the Senate Democrats serving since 1937.I rest my case! Once again, Factcheck.org says " It's true that vote rankings by the politically neutral magazine The National Journal rated Kerry "most liberal" in 2003 and in three earlier years during his first Senate term: 1986, 1988, and 1990. "The statement that Kerry was the most liberal is a true statement. Perhaps the Bush campaign can be faulted for not qualifying the statement by including "in 2003", but the statement itself is true. Clay
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 15:11:18 GMT -5
Clay, the statement we're discussing here is that Kerry would be an extreme liberal.
Extreme liberal does not equal most liberal.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Nov 4, 2004 15:34:03 GMT -5
I think the US has irritated a lot of people becos of the arrogant position they often keep. And some people and country leaders simply don't take kindly to America being the most powerful country at this point in time. I agree with some positions coming from the left; the problem for the (moderate) left right now is that various outspoken and active leaders in their realm simply do not represent the majority of Americans' views. This is one of the reasons Kerry lost. Just like Europe didn't believe it was sensible to stop Hitler in the late 30s. I blame pacifist/appeasement countries for thinking that diplomacy and talk will contain a madman, and I blame those countries for not seeing the importance of the world working together to bring these types of madmen down before it's too late -- I think that many people in the rest of the world have their eyes wide SHUT on this issue, just as they did at previous times in history. Many people just don't like Bush for no other reason than the fact that he won the election in 2000, and the circumstances surrounding his legitimate win. Many libs haven't let go of that anger; many people in other parts of the world don't understand just what happened in 2000, and so they incorrectly view Bush as an "illegitimate" President. Plus some people just don't like the "cowboy" image. I think opposition is also tied in to who is President at a particular moment, and the fact that people's memories soften with time.. emotions at the beginning of the Afghanistan war were still raw from the murderous attacks on 9/11, but now some of that has faded with various people. I think many people (in the world) thought that the physical/military war on "terror" would end in Afghanistan, when it was always clear to people who understood this new fight we're engaged in, that it would (and should) extend beyond Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by What on Nov 5, 2004 9:01:02 GMT -5
I blame pacifist/appeasement countries for thinking that diplomacy and talk will contain a madman, and I blame those countries for not seeing the importance of the world working together to bring these types of madmen down before it's too late -- I think that many people in the rest of the world have their eyes wide SHUT on this issue, just as they did at previous times in history. You blame the other countries? Working together means just that, together. If you want to work together when the rest of the people you are working with disagree you do not pick up your toys and go home to do your own thing. Don't complain about rest of the countries not working together. The US made the decision to go against the wishes of the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Nov 6, 2004 21:57:16 GMT -5
You blame the other countries? Working together means just that, together. Right. It also means not being bought off by the enemy to oppose justified action. Kind of hard to "work together" when one's so-called allies are in the pocket of the enemy. Not so. There were numerous countries involved in helping us in the effort. The main countries who opposed were involved in corruption with Saddam's Oil For Food program.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 7, 2004 10:09:04 GMT -5
I'm going to repeat myself again.
The opposition to the Iraq war has little to do with the oil for food scandal. Btw, there are Americans on the list too. But even without the conflicted interests of certain people, France and Germany would still be opposed, the vast majority of their countries opposed this war and i don't think they think about oil when judging the need for war! Holland was part of this 'coalition of the willing' but our govt only gave political support, and no military support for the invasion becos the population didn't support it. I think the same would go for France and Germany.
|
|