Liberals: Rely on Ignorance

Originally posted by slank
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.
.

Jesus Christ man!!!!! Are you actually suggesting we should have left him in power? I guess that public executions, legal rape, and stoning women is a whole lot better than where they are now huh?

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by PistolPete
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....

Not enough Conservatives!?!? This board has a large group of regular posters who would label themselves as such, even though in bares no semblance to their actuality of being Rove Republicans. Another newsflash: almost all of the Moderators who post in political forums are Republicans!!

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.

Given the need to fix what was broken, continued Iraqi occupation is inevitable. A Dennis Kucinich pack up & split is not an option. The "WAR" is very blanket, however; which misquote do you need clarification on? The Biden/Lugar bipartisan initiative, which everyone incluyding Kerry voted for, was to grant the authority, should all the list of conditions fail....that's it. Kerry, nor any of the Republicans with a soul who also voted, thought inspections would be shelved & immediate invasion planned.

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?

See above. It was crystal clear during the debate as well; did you watch it? And if you did, did you listen? Ambiguity on that is no longer excusable & clearly intended to mislead if brought up again. There is no gray area on that - we had the Powell Doctrine reversed by the political arm of the government over the objections of the last 3 generals to hold command of CENTCOM.

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.

It's not President Kerry's job to make the world happy, as the Right Wing parrots in various ways, but to put America first. So yes, I rather see nobody killed for an unnecessary war, but if the numbers must happen, I'd be happy to see Americans taking far less than 90% of the casualities; wouldn't you?
The governments serve the same role as ours does: to be a facilitator for their country's GDP driving entities. So yes, reconstruction contracts getting spread about WILL drive an influx of foreign troops.

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?

Nobody claimed an absolute victory, so you're putting up a strawman. The debate put the common questions in a public forum with first person answers. That was the victory - unadulterated response illustrating their respective grasp of the issues.

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".

Respectfully, and in a non-flame way, BullS**t!

Kerry is not likely to have a Democrat Supreme Court or Congress. THe Bush "dictatorship" is a Party Dictatorship, if you're going to use that term. Have we had any accidental presidents? Ambition is the cornerstone of success; what's wrong with someone knowing that "earning it" is something he'd have to do? Bush as a comparison, did all the "appearence" functions ( School/Military/Business/Office ).
Really? If you're basing this assumption of Democrats being less "liberty freindly" on votes in Congress, you need to look again at the PA II votes as well as other liberty curtailing votes that the Dems tried to block.

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.

I agree with half of the above & have commented on such. The vitriol against Bush is more than warranted, because the respect for the office is not set in stone; once it's lossed by deed & word, it no longer is a given. I've frequently commented that there is enough dirt to legitimately throw on this farce of a presidency....flaming isn't even necessary.....they're self destructive just by looking at the facts.
The "facts" that you're imploring I also agree with, but I'm pleading for the president to come out with them. Else, why run a campaign of attack against Kerry & be so light ( non-existent) on the actual plans of how & why a second term is deserved?
Kerry is a HELL OF ALOT BETTER. Better than Bush by far and much more capable than Badnarik or Nader. I know the 3rd party mantra has you putting the lot of the major party candidates in the same bucket, but it does not apply here. If there were a snowballs chance for a Badnarik presidency ending the Bush mistake, I'd consider that vote. But please, it's not and the party stranglehold on American politics is another thread.

For a closing statement: LOOK AT THE THIRD PARTIES!

Slank, why allow Saddam the opportunity to murder men, women and children when WE can do it better ourselves?
Besides, George needed something to do. What else would George do as president? Work for us in this country and straighten out America?
Not Bush policy.

No real money in that.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Slank, why allow Saddam the opportunity to murder men, women and children when WE can do it better ourselves?
Besides, George needed something to do. What else would George do as president? Work for us in this country and straighten out America?
Not Bush policy.

No real money in that.

Oh yeah, because American soldiers really go through the streets of Iraq purposely killing and torturing random citizens.......? Because American soldiers take women and children out of their homes and lock them up in holes... American soldiers stone women for being raped? Oh that's right, they don't.

This argument that our soldiers are just as bad as Saddam and his Cronies is absolutely rediculous. We never intentionally kill regular people. Terrorists dress just like regular citizens. When they shoot at us and we kill, it's reported as another civilian casualty. We are strategic in our bombings of buildings. We only bomb buildings that are harboring terrorists. We don't abduct people and torture them. Anyone with a brain admits that the Iraqi's are at least better off without Saddam. Even hardcore liberals will admit to that one.

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by Herman]