|
Grex > Agora56 > #128: Will we become a police state if there's another attack? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 92 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 10 of 92:
| 
Feb 26 06:25 UTC 2006 |
whoa. a s a
|
mcnally
|
|
response 11 of 92:
|
Feb 26 07:29 UTC 2006 |
re #6: if you'd wanted a moderate government you should've voted for
Kerry. Setting aside arguments about whether or not Kerry was a liberal
candidate or not, which do you think leads to a more moderate outcome,
having a president, legislature, and Supreme Court all controlled by
a single party or having the legislative and executive branches
controlled by opposing parties committed to maintaining the system
of checks and balances that has traditionally safeguarded us from
government excess?
|
bru
|
|
response 12 of 92:
|
Feb 26 12:57 UTC 2006 |
you mean controlled by the same party like the Democrats did for so many
years?
|
twenex
|
|
response 13 of 92:
|
Feb 26 13:43 UTC 2006 |
Re: #11. Nathan thinks Kerry was an "extremist". Yes. Seriously.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 14 of 92:
|
Feb 26 16:01 UTC 2006 |
Re 13: Is, not was. But I think anyone who votes down the party lines
to be either too stupid to think for themselves, or an extremist.
Obviously Kerry is not stupid. I look at his stance on abortion, the
balanced budget amendment, affirmitive action, taxes, and gun control
and see only stances that reflect his party. And while I might agree
with the democrats on some issues (health care and capital punishment to
name two), I will not vote for someone just because he's "not bush".
Maybe I missed something, so please feel free to show me how Kerry is
moderate.
|
slynne
|
|
response 15 of 92:
|
Feb 26 16:23 UTC 2006 |
I dont think the point was that Kerry was particularly moderate but that
a government with the congress in the hands of one party and the
presidency in the hands of another would be moderate. This is because
the veto power of the one office with it's views would be a force
keeping the other in check. And vice versa...a liberal president would
have trouble implimenting a far left agenda with a conservative congress
in place.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 16 of 92:
|
Feb 26 17:18 UTC 2006 |
On issues of foreign policy Kerry was sometimes hard to distinguish from
Bush. It sounds like this discussion is focused more on domestic policy
for some reason. On issues of domestic policy, I'm not sure I see what
makes Kerry less moderate than Bush either.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 17 of 92:
|
Feb 26 18:50 UTC 2006 |
Kerry said we had to work unilateraly to keep nuclear weapons out of
North Korea, while Bush said we needed work multilaterally by including
China and South Korea. I never understood why Kerry said that except it
was opposite Bush's position.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 18 of 92:
|
Feb 26 23:20 UTC 2006 |
So which view, multilateralism vs. unilateralism, is more "moderate"?
And does "moderate" have a meaning separate from "what I personally
agree with"?
A lot of the Bush vs. Kerry controversy involves which status quo to
stick with. Which is the "moderate" position on the Bush tax cuts: make
them permanent or allow them to expire? What about the Assault Weapons
Ban? The Patriot Act?
|
tod
|
|
response 19 of 92:
|
Feb 27 01:08 UTC 2006 |
I don't think Dick Cheney's ticker could handle the scrutiny.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 20 of 92:
|
Feb 27 02:01 UTC 2006 |
It's not about which view is more moderate, because both Bush and Kerry
are extremists. I would also add that when it came to Iraq, both had
different stances...Kerry wanted multilateralism, Bush wanted
unilateralism. I think the most frustrating thing of the 2004 election
is that nobody cared to ask Kerry why unilateralism is right in North
Korea but not in Iraq, and nobody cared to ask Bush why multilateralism
is right in North Korea but not in Iraq.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 21 of 92:
|
Feb 27 04:32 UTC 2006 |
North Korea wasn't considered all that important as far as foreign
policy and war was concerned; the media mostly wanted to talk about
either what Bush is doing in Iraq and what Kerry was (or was not)
doing in Vietnam.
If Kerry was an extremist, then what was Dennis Kucinich? Al Sharpton?
Ralph Nader? Roger Calero (candidate for the Socialist Workers Party)?
Are there any moderates in American politics?
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 92:
|
Feb 27 07:12 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:12: Another knee-jerk "the Democrats did it!" response?
Really, what's your point? No one's argued that one-party rule by the
Democrats would be optimal, either.
|
twenex
|
|
response 23 of 92:
|
Feb 27 11:09 UTC 2006 |
"Not optimal", maybe. "Better"? It's not like they could do worse.
|
klg
|
|
response 24 of 92:
|
Feb 27 12:16 UTC 2006 |
re: "if you'd wanted a moderate government you should've voted for
Kerry."
Really?? Isn't John Kerry's voting record more liberal that the senior
bloviator from MA?
re: "On issues of foreign policy Kerry was sometimes hard to
distinguish from Bush."
That would depend on whether you heard him speak in the a.m. or in the
p.m.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 25 of 92:
|
Feb 27 17:34 UTC 2006 |
re #24:
> re: "if you'd wanted a moderate government you should've voted for
> Kerry."
>
> Really?? Isn't John Kerry's voting record more liberal that the senior
> bloviator from MA?
Let me know when you *finish* reading #6 and we can discuss
it then if you like. Be sure to write down any words you didn't
understand and I'll explain them to you.
|
scholar
|
|
response 26 of 92:
|
Feb 27 22:56 UTC 2006 |
:(
|
richard
|
|
response 27 of 92:
|
Feb 28 01:07 UTC 2006 |
In #5, rcurl said, "No offense taken - Kerry was a poor candidate. He
was just better than the alternative."
I disagree, I don't think John Kerry was a poor candidate at all, he's
a quality statesman with a long distinguished career of public service,
and a war hero. Central casting couldn't have come up with someone
with a better resume. Kerry got undone by three things:
1.Mainly that it is almost impossible for any candidate to defeat an
incumbent election while there is a war going on. It was going to be
exceedingly difficult, no matter who the democrats nominated, to defeat
Bush in 2004.
2.The second thing is that there were some bitter feelings among
democrats stemming from the primary season. I knew some party
activists who were Dean supporters whose support of Kerry was lukewarm
at best because they were bitter about negative ads.
3. Those appalling swift boat ads where a few republican swift boat
veterans lied through their teeth and disgraced their own military
service by saying Kerry didn't deserve his medals, when he clearly did.
None of those things were personally the fault of Kerry as a
candidate. Kerry was a terrific speaker who got better as the campaign
went along and in other years could probably have won. In fact Kerry
has all but made it clear that he intends to run again in 2008 against
Hillary Clinton and he could make it a contest.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 28 of 92:
|
Feb 28 01:32 UTC 2006 |
Actually, a year before the election, polls asking voters to choose
between George W. Bush and "an unnamed Democrat" were showing pretty
reliably in favor of the unnamed Democrat, though when the same
question was posed as being George W. Bush versus any of the likely
nominees the results shifted pretty noticably in Bush's favor. I
interpret that as indicating that people *wanted* to vote against
the incumbent but disliked the Democrats' nominees.
Your reasoning also totally omits Kerry's serious charisma deficit.
Perhaps he's charming and energizing in person, but on television,
at least, he came across as passionless and phony.
|
klg
|
|
response 29 of 92:
|
Feb 28 03:42 UTC 2006 |
Richard shows promise for a career in comedy. (Got any more jokes??)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 30 of 92:
|
Feb 28 04:01 UTC 2006 |
So what lessons will the Democrats have learned from the 2004 election
that they will attempt to not repeat in 2008?
|
klg
|
|
response 31 of 92:
|
Feb 28 11:44 UTC 2006 |
Vote Republican??
|
nharmon
|
|
response 32 of 92:
|
Feb 28 13:19 UTC 2006 |
You mean vote republican in the primaries so they can get a lesser-
qualified GOP candidate nominated?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 33 of 92:
|
Feb 28 15:06 UTC 2006 |
Or more-qualified, depending on how you look at it. Dems aren't
organized enough to make that work, though.
|
richard
|
|
response 34 of 92:
|
Feb 28 15:43 UTC 2006 |
mcnally in what way did kerry come across as phony on tv? I don't think you
listened to him very much, in fact given your stated political views, I'm
certain you didn't. Don't say things you don't even know are true.
|