Liberals: Rely on Ignorance

First I'd like to state that the topic of this thread isn't meant to blanket all Kerry supporters, just the many that bask in the ignorance of partisan politics. If there were more conservatives here I'd probably be saying the same to them. Although many of them here have accepted Bush's supposed loss grasciously, which I can't say for some of the supposed winners. With that being said....

1. George Bush will continue the war (stay the course, if you will ). John Kerry counters with: it was a mistake, but I will continue the war. Yes, he demolished Bush with that one.

2. More Iraq: John Kerry states it was a mistake, George Bush points out Kerry voted for said mistake. Tell me again where you see this clear win coming from Dem's?

3. George Bush's war so far has resulted in over 1000 American deaths. John Kerry's plan is to get the world more involved. It's better for more Estonian troops to die, right? It's better for other nations that didn't want or support the war to begin with to help pay for it right? That will make the world real happy.

Furthermore, neither man presented clear plans for anything. Isn't that the point of a debate? Where's the absolute victory there? This debate proved nothing to me. We already knew Bush wasn't intellectual, people act like that's some kind of revelation. I knew how to get to Kerry's website before the debate too. I'd have to say that the American people are the losers in the whole thing. Why are all the liberal ATSer's patting themselves on the back over this?

Which brings me to the title of the thread.

I see often that Bush is a "dictator" or the "king". Kings and dictators don't lose debates, let alone participate in them. Yes, he has too much power, do you really think Kerry won't? John Kerry's been grooming his entire life to be President, there's a certain amount of power lust there. Also, remember Bill Clinton and FEMA? The Democrats aren't any more liberty friendly then the Republicans. Deny that ingorance "folks".

Lastly, the filling of many threads with baseless, insulting, or just plain ridiculous anti-Bush claims. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, don't say anything at all. And Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. I don't know where some of you are getting your ideas or information from, it damn sure can't be from a place that "deny's ignorance".

Seriously though, for reasons stated earlier, quit the Bush attacking for a while, examine the issues, and find out Kerry ain't a hell of a lot better. We don't need either of these men.

For a closing statement: LOOK AT THE THIRD PARTIES!

Well, while I may disagree on the choice of candidate, I respect your opinion and you make many valid points. The Kerry supporters are trying to call it a clear win and that he trounced Bush, but examination of the debate reveals no clear winner (even Kerry's closest advisors said it was a draw). His statements during the debate conflicted with the many different stances on every issue discussed over the course of teh primaries and the campaign. He would have impressed me alot more if he had acknowledged his lack of clear speaking and decision, then went on to outlint his vision. However, we only saw him reference his website, as if he didn't know what it was, so he had to refer you somewhere else.

Don't get me wrong, I was very dissapointed with Bush's performance, considering how skilled he really is at debating. He faile to mention Kerry's tragic Senate record, his missing Senate Intelligence hearings, of which he is a member of the committee, almost 75% of the time, his votes to cut almost every program and equipment appropriation that came up, things our troops are using every day in combat, his refusal to fund the war he voted in favor of, and now, for the third try at explaining, this time says it was a protest. This really gets me. He is so driven to show his disfavor with a decision or action, he is willing to vote against funding that purchases equipment and needed supplies, which then directly puts our men and women in greater danger. Let me ask you, Senator Kerry, is it okay to lay thousands of American lives on the line because you want to stage a 'protest' by denying them the funds needed to fight a war successively? How shameful

That is a very good commentary on the debate. It is quite interesting that they both agree on nearly everything, but differ on how they would do it. I can't for the life of me realize why people think Kerry is any better or worse than Bush. Kerry himself said he would have gone to war and says he only differs in how he would have approached it...so what? People think Kerry will get us out of Iraq...don't think so. By his own admission he would have done the same thing as Bush.

I'm not a Kerry fan (obviously) or a Bush fan (very obvious), but people need to wake up and take a huge whiff of the morning coffee and realize these men are practically one and the same. How much more obvious can this be after the debate on Thursday?

Good post PistolPete

Kerry won the debate. A debate consists of making your side seem more true. We've sen anough debate here where someone could win a debate without actually supporting what they are saying. Many people take the deabte at face value, latching on to what candidates said as oppsoed to what they meant (take a look at the Poland thread for ample evidence of this. Deny Ignorance my ass).

In that respect, Kerry won. However, the reason I call the debate a draw in the real sense is because neither side actually laid out anything new that made me think "I should vote for this guy."

[edit on 10-3-2004 by Esoterica]

EDIT: I almsot forgot about "Folks." Jesus H. Christ, you'd think people would have more to complain about than the usage of a common noun. What next, calling something "Pop" instead of "Soda"?

[edit on 10-3-2004 by Esoterica]

Originally posted by PistolPete
Lastly, the filling of many threads with baseless, insulting, or just plain ridiculous anti-Bush claims. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, don't say anything at all. And Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. I don't know where some of you are getting your ideas or information from, it damn sure can't be from a place that "deny's ignorance".

I agree with this whole-heartedly. It is remarkable that the easiest way to start a lenghty thread is to make a baseless Bush-bashing statement. Fifty Bush haters can pile-on before a serious and ethical scholar can assemble the requisite material to counter the lie.

I have been doing google research for several years now, mostly to post to groups like this. I can't remember a time when it was so hard to find original source material as it is now. There are so many sites up that have one purpose and that is to promulgate the same lies over and over again.

My association with the left has been long and intimate. It has been one of the greatest challenges of my life, because while I am really not partisan, if you disagree with these folks they aren't satisfied to just disagree, they want your head.

I can always tell when I am right about an issue by the vitriol of my leftist brethren. The nastier they get the righter I am. Just like Fox News.

GradyPhilpott
if you disagree with these folks they aren't satisfied to just disagree, they want your head.

Yeah, I agree with that statement. As most know, I am a "Bush supporter", meaning that I am forced to constantly argue this point because everyone on this site is liberal. I'm not a hard-core Bush supporter. I always admit when he makes a mistake, and often laugh at his public speaking skills (When you can actually SEE him using his finger to find his place on the notecard hidden on his podium). I never hate anyone I argue with. I don't think they're stupid or mis-informed unless they deserve to be thought of that way I just happen to think Bush's doing a good job, and a lot of people HATE me for it. I mean, I can respect their opinion, but they can't respect mine because I'm a republican. They think I'm stupid, ignorant, misinformed...a redneck!! (Even though I'm not even close to a redneck). Like GradyPhilpott said, they act like the want my head for it!

Originally posted by Herman
�������. They think I'm stupid, ignorant, misinformed...a redneck!! (Even though I'm not even close to a redneck). Like GradyPhilpott said, they act like the want my head for it!

and that would be coming from the fact that they are enlightened and you are not smart enough to figure it out�.you just haven�t thought long enough to have figured it out. I mean if they can think about it for 15 seconds, and they are very busy, then you can to.

Originally posted by keholmes
and that would be coming from the fact that they are enlightened and you are not smart enough to figure it out�.you just haven�t thought long enough to have figured it out. I mean if they can think about it for 15 seconds, and they are very busy, then you can to.

Fine, you wanna take away 20 points for a one-liner? Maybe that's all I say? Would you rather me just fill it with nonsense? alsdfj;alskdjf;laksjdf;lkajsdl;fkjasldjfa;lsdjf;laksjdf;lkajsd;lfkjasdlfa;sldj;lkasdf;lkajsdf;lkjas;dlfja;lsjdf;lkasjdf;lkajsd;lfkja;sldfj;laksjdfl;ka sjdfl;kjasdl;fjas;ldfja;sldf






-Exactly. hahaha

Happy now?

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by Herman
I don't think they're stupid or mis-informed unless they deserve to be thought of that way I just happen to think Bush's doing a good job, and a lot of people HATE me for it. I mean, I can respect their opinion, but they can't respect mine because I'm a republican. They think I'm stupid, ignorant, misinformed...a redneck!! (Even though I'm not even close to a redneck). Like GradyPhilpott said, they act like the want my head for it!

I am a conservative-libertarian type who will vote Republican because the Democrat scares me. I didn't have much use for Clinton, but I respected the man for the Office he held, in spite of the way he held it.
But, many, many liberals/democrats resort to bashing, name calling and abusiveness when discussing the opposing viewpoint. It's like they see red anytime their man/woman in not the one holding the office

It's not just here on ATS. It's IRL and on other forums, even those that aren't political.

Journal Editor Paul Steiger has come to the defense of his beleaguered Baghdad correspondent, who blasted the war in Iraq as a "disaster" that has deteriorated "into a raging barbaric guerilla war" that will haunt the United States for decades.
"Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster," Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi wrote in a group e-mail to friends that inadvertently became widely posted on the Web.

Yesterday, the e-mail was mentioned prominently on the journalism blog by Jim Romenesko on the Poynter.org site.

Steiger said Fassihi's missive included "a few expressions of purely personal opinion about the situation there."

But the Wall Street Journal editor said the musings in no way distorted his reporter's ability to deliver fair coverage from Baghdad.

In her e-mail, Fassihi laments, "Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest."

Fears of abductions have sharply curtailed reporters ability to cover events or move about.



"My most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second."

She also said the "Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities." She said there are car bombs, assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. "The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war."

Steiger said: "Ms. Fassihi's private opinions have in no way distorted her coverage, which has been a model of intelligent and courageous reporting, and scrupulous accuracy and fairness."





Back to: Business | Home
Just looking at facts.

Originally posted by PistolPete
Lastly, the filling of many threads with baseless, insulting, or just plain ridiculous anti-Bush claims. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, don't say anything at all. And Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. I don't know where some of you are getting your ideas or information from, it damn sure can't be from a place that "deny's ignorance".

This is the only group that I find truly annoying. I enjoy most of the posts and the diverse opinions on ATS, even some of the extreme ones. But it's the cheerleader crowd you describe that ruin some very good threads. By the time you wade through 2 pages of smack - you lose interest.
.
My Way Above goes to you.

Originally posted by Bleys
This is the only group that I find truly annoying. I enjoy most of the posts and the diverse opinions on ATS, even some of the extreme ones. But it's the cheerleader crowd you describe that ruin some very good threads. By the time you wade through 2 pages of smack - you lose interest.
.
My Way Above goes to you.

talk about timing, how did you get to post just 10 min later

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If you disagree with [liberals] they aren't satisfied to just disagree, they want your head.

I've noticed this too. Don't they believe in freedom of speech, and tolerance for other viewpoints?

Speaking of which, where are all the liberal responses?



[edit on 10/3/2004 by ThunderCloud]

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
I've noticed this too. Don't they believe in freedom of speech, and tolerance for other viewpoints?
[edit on 10/3/2004 by ThunderCloud]

Yeah, you can have your own opinion just as long as it's not different from theirs . Either that, or don't speak your opinion.

Adding to that, doesn't is seem like it's always the dem/liberals that are the ones to protest? Anytime something doesn't go their way they have to host a f-ing rally or something!!! For God sake, did anyone see that limo ride when Bush first got put into office? They were throwing eggs at the car and booing and holding up signs. You never see conservatives doing that!!!! Sore losers or something

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by Herman]

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by Herman]

I knew a few of you knew what I was talking about! You don't have to be a Badnarik, Peroutka, Cobb, or Nader supporter to see this. I realize most Bush supporters don't think the third parties are that great...but take a look any way!

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I am a conservative-libertarian type who will vote Republican because the Democrat scares me. I didn't have much use for Clinton, but I respected the man for the Office he held, in spite of the way he held it.
But, many, many liberals/democrats resort to bashing, name calling and abusiveness when discussing the opposing viewpoint. It's like they see red anytime their man/woman in not the one holding the office

Liberals make me angry, and this quote exactly sums up why. You have to respect any person that holds the office of President. Conservatives that insulted Clinton for his humanly actions irritated me too. Not all on the right crucified Clinton in spite of his "indescretions" (Limbaugh doesn't speak for all). Some of said indiscretions are the same Bush has been called out for by the left himself. Is it that easy to forget?

Support Kerry for all means if you find him the better candidate. But don't base said opinion on bull#. But, if you don't think a third-party candidate can lead a country - you're still alive and probably doing just as good as you were doing in 2000 and a main stream candidate you think is an idiot has lead it for four years.

.
First of all John F. Kerry has the presence of mind to admit the capacity for making mistakes. BUSH NEVER WILL. Talk about ignorance.

Bush is living in somekind of dream world. He has some deluded idea that turning the formerly STABLE Iraq into a Hotbed for terrorists He has accomplised anything productive.

Bush has not located, contained or rounded up nuclear materials around in the world.
Bush is in office, Why then is he NOW telling us he has somekind of 'plan'in Iraq? JUST DO IT BUSH. Quit flapping your YAP about what you are going to do.

Bush tried to have a 'WAR ON THE CHEAP'. NEWSFLASH! Wars are NEVER cheap. They create new generations of people who will resent and hate us. A new generation of TERRORISTS that will specifically HATE AMERICA. Some of these war-hawks who, 'NEVER SAW A WAR THEY DIDN'T LIKE' Are taking this Nation down the road to long term devastation and destruction. Follow idiotic war-hawks at this Nation's Peril

We need someone who is thoughtful and intelligent in allocating resources. Shooting blindly in ALL directions is not any way to fight the war on terrorism.

Mothers of America if you care for and value the lives of your children and their futures, you will select a leader who WILL ELIMINATE MORE TERRORISTS THAN HE CREATES.
.

First of all John F. Kerry has the presence of mind to admit the capacity for making mistakes. BUSH NEVER WILL. Talk about ignorance.

What's the point in John F. Kerry admitting a mistake if he continues it?

Bush is living in somekind of dream world. He has some deluded idea that turning the formerly STABLE Iraq into a Hotbed for terrorists He has accomplised anything productive.

Well I wouldn't say Saddam run Iraq was stable, but John F. Kerry wishes to continue the instability there and indeed voted for it.

Bush has not located, contained or rounded up nuclear materials around in the world.
Bush is in office, Why then is he NOW telling us he has somekind of 'plan'in Iraq? JUST DO IT BUSH. Quit flapping your YAP about what you are going to do.

Can anyone substantially do this? What was John F. Kerry's plan for this again? www.johnkerry.com

We need someone who is thoughtful and intelligent in allocating resources. Shooting blindly in ALL directions is not any way to fight the war on terrorism.

You're correct on this. Ask yourself....is John F. Kerry?

Mothers of America if you care for and value the lives of your children and their futures, you will select a leader who WILL ELIMINATE MORE TERRORISTS THAN HE CREATES.

Minus the emotive "mother" language you are again correct. But this man is not John F. Kerry. He wishes the lives of the US's mothers' children to be on the line still. Along with more of the worlds' mothers' children.


The debates prove the point that the answer to all of these statements isn't the "big two".

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
But, many, many liberals/democrats resort to bashing, name calling and abusiveness when discussing the opposing viewpoint. It's like they see red anytime their man/woman in not the one holding the office

It's not just here on ATS. It's IRL and on other forums, even those that aren't political.

What you say is very true! But I feel that I should point out that some conservative/Republicans do it as well. Not all, just some...Mostly hardcore righties that are usually as misinformed about the left, as some on the left are of the right. I belong to another group, of mostly left people. Most of them are educated and respectful of others viewpoints. We do have a few though that are sooo far left it's scary. We rag on them more then the right lol! I think the one exception to that is when someone comes on and calls us terrorists for not backing Bush. I hope all this made sense, I'm pretty tired

IMO Iraq under Saddam was Stable. You didn't have civil war. And the people that were unhappy hated Saddam, NOT the USA.

Currently ALL people in Iraq are subject to being kidnapped and held for ransom, as much or more by simple criminal gangs. Especially those who are wealthy or are saleable for a high-price [read western] as 'political' propaganda to terrorist gangs.

When Saddam Hussein was in power as long as you didn't run afoul of the government, you could live in relative safety. Order was maintained. You might argue at too high a price. But this nor any other US president was elected to gurantee Iraqis their freedom.

And yes, John F. Kerry will have some more access to actually influence foreign leaders by virtue of the fact that he personally hasn't alienated virtually every last one of them. As oil consuming nations they all have some interest in seeing Iraq become a stable oil producing state.

John F. Kerry pointed out that The ONLY ministry guarded by THIS ADMINISTRATION in Bagdad was the OIL MINISTRY. The whitehouse crew is a bunch of EX-OIL EXECUTIVES. They are a bunch of Peak Oil Dead Enders. They can only think in terms of Oil and believe the world will end when we run out of oil.

John F. Kerry states we/he will make it Clear to the world that We have NO long term interests in remaining in Iraq. Can anyone sane HONESTY say the same thing about Bush and his cohorts?

John F. Kerry is an Actual Military man and WILL unlike Bush listen to his military advisors, and not just to Rumsfelds 'Pipe Dreams'.

TERRORISM IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF WAR. STABLE GOVERNMENTS THAT DO NOT TRADE WITH TERRORISTS ARE CONSTRUCTIVE TO THIS EFFORT. MOST OF BUSHES SUPPORTERS ARE ABOUT CREATING MORE CHAOS WHICH IS THE LAST THING THAT SHOULD BE DONE.
Some of these people are trying to fight the cold war or some other war. IMO they are clueless.
.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The nastier they get the righter I am. Just like Fox News.

You are right.
So utterly correct.

Rightey than right you are right.

So right you go out one side and comin the other... RIGHT.

*wondering if being nicer you might be "wronger"*