The W
Views: 98551830
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.8.14 1934
The W - Current Events & Politics - Kerry in NY Times Magazine (Page 2)
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.70
Pages: Prev 1 2
(1046 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (27 total)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.09
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      That no-good fucking flip-flopping America-hating French-looking Commie bastard! How dare he project victory!




    Don't really look at it like that. I think our pre-9-11, law enforcement mentality was fundamentally flawed. I don't WANT to go back to that. If someone launches an attack against us, be it against civilians, an embassy, or our military assets, we should treat it like it IS, a declaration of war, and not like a hooker trying to turn a trick.

    The very idea that he wants to get back to that complacent mindset that got us into this mess in the first place is distressing...


Wrong, because that's not what he said.

What Kerry actually said was that while you can't ever actually eliminate all terrorism on the planet, that it is possible to shrink it down to a level where it's no longer a direct threat to the American citizenry. He didn't say that's where we're at now. He didn't say that's where we should be now. He didn't say that's where we should've been on September 10th and didn't say that's where he should've been since September 11th. He's saying that's where he wants to take us as a nation. He's saying that he thinks he can get the war on terror to that level.

Again I say, what a bastard he is for projecting victory.





"Finally someone stood up to the little oil pimp... This guy who somehow has managed to combine Yale intellectualism with the American cowboy myth and be completely inauthentic in both roles. That's what I see in Bush... He's an empty suit."
---George Carlin
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 36 min.
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.09
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Wrong, because that's not what he said.

    What Kerry actually said was that while you can't ever actually eliminate all terrorism on the planet, that it is possible to shrink it down to a level where it's no longer a direct threat to the American citizenry. He didn't say that's where we're at now. He didn't say that's where we should be now. He didn't say that's where we should've been on September 10th and didn't say that's where he should've been since September 11th. He's saying that's where he wants to take us as a nation. He's saying that he thinks he can get the war on terror to that level.

    Again I say, what a bastard he is for projecting victory.


That is nowhere near what he SAID. Stop spinning his absolutely rediculous statements to try to make him appear to be more on the ball than he is.

He's a fucking moron who is going to get many, MANY Americans and our allies overseas killed with his philosophies and policies if he is elected. If you (Kerry supporters) dont see that, then you are blind to how the real world works.

(edited by StaggerLee on 11.10.04 2107)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2776 days
Last activity: 2619 days
AIM:  
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
The last thing John Kerry is doing is "projecting victory." The man has been a pessimist of the highest order on both Iraq and Afghanistan. He has obvious political motives for this, of course, so make of it what you will.

Take two facts, for example.

a.) Afghanistan just held elections for the first time in God knows when (ever?)
b.) The Taliban is still fighting us in Afghanistan.

Bush will focus on a), and Kerry on b).

I happen to think being the optimist in this situation is better for our country; we gotta win, after all. Kerry's in the unenviable position of hoping for US failure that he can spin into victory.

And is he really saying we can win, with that statement? Because in the modern history of terror, it has never been a nuisance. Does Kerry prefer a return to pre 9/10 terror, where a few hundred Americans were killed every so often, and Israelis daily? He doesn't make it clear in his comments.

Besides, reducing someone to a "nuisance" isn't exactly victory. It's kinda like settling. "Well, we can't beat them, but we can make them weaker."

Edit:

There's so much more to carp about in this article.


    He would begin, if sworn into office, by going immediately to the United Nations to deliver a speech recasting American foreign policy. Whereas Bush has branded North Korea ''evil'' and refuses to negotiate head on with its authoritarian regime, Kerry would open bilateral talks over its burgeoning nuclear program.


Which Clinton did, with the end result that they have the Bomb.


    Kerry envisions appointing a top-level envoy to restart the Middle East peace process


Which Clinton did, and was then promptly betrayed by Arafat.


    In all of this, Kerry intends to use as leverage America's considerable capacity for economic aid; a Kerry adviser told me, only slightly in jest, that Kerry's most tempting fantasy is to attend the G-8 summit.


So Kerry's foreign policy is buying off our enemies. How long do you think it will take these people to realize that all they have to do is threaten to develop nukes, and they'll get a free lunch from the US in perpetuity? Kinda makes his rhetoric about opening firehouses in Baghdad ring a little hollow.

And I take back my previous statement.


    ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said.


So Kerry thinks terrorism was a nuisance. When? The Cole, the Khobar Towers, the first WTC bombing... that's when terrorism was a nuisance. Pan Am 103, Munich, the Achille Lauro... nuisance. The Intifada... nuisance. Sure.

(edited by PalpatineW on 12.10.04 0032)

In Theo We Trust
Crimedog
Boerewors








Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2656 days
Last activity: 2646 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.65
This is part of the problem with Kerry. What he said may absolutely make sense in his mind. However, he has a way of speaking that sounds condescending and like he's "dumbing it down" for us idiots out here that can't possibly comprehend his brilliance.

Now. Regardless of what he meant, what Kerry said is asinine. It leads me to believe that he just doesn't understand that the world has changed. The U.S. can't just idly sit back and toss a few cruise missiles towards terrorists when they hit us. Bush, for all his faults, gets that. He realizes that if you want to stop terrorism _ or at least severly curtail it _ you have to go on the offensive.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 145 days
Last activity: 145 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60
The only thing offensive about Bush was his choice of targets.

Zing!

-Jag



The only Presidents I respect are dead ones.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 398 days
Last activity: 358 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.70
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    a.) Afghanistan just held elections for the first time in God knows when (ever?)
    b.) The Taliban is still fighting us in Afghanistan.

    Bush will focus on a), and Kerry on b).

    I happen to think being the optimist in this situation is better for our country; we gotta win, after all.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. Are you saying that it's inevitable that we will win? Because I seriously doubt that. And I'd rather have a realist than a (blind) optimist.



NOTE: The above post makes no sense. We apologize for the inconvenience.
dMp
Banger








Since: 4.1.02
From: The Hague, Netherlands (Europe)

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.70
In a way what Kerry says is what we all want, right?
A world where you don't have to be afraid of terrorism, a world where you can speak to a hostile nation and resolve things without using threats and violence...

Kerry believes that this is possible, and who knows..
However the way he says it makes it sound like he is naive and hasn't been paying attention to (world) politics for the past decades. Easy pickings for his opponents since you simply have to point at his words. His defenders have to go behind the words and explain them. A debate they can never win....





*sigh* Why bother?
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 4.70
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: John Kerry Video Game
Next thread: Kerry opens 3-point lead in poll
Previous thread: Australia Decides
(1046 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
If the Colorado ballot question passes, all hell will break loose. However, the question is way behind at this point...
The W - Current Events & Politics - Kerry in NY Times Magazine (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.107 seconds.