Printable View
I think what is being said is who wrote the article is irrevelant towards the subject of this thread. Yes, her writing style can be grating in it's fashion, but what you just threw up there was a quote, first and foremost. That's what is being discussed. I don't care wrote it.
No - that's exactly it. There IS no issue. Cheney thinks Kerry would prefer to shower the world in patchouli. Cheney disagrees. End of article.Quote:
Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Well, if your internal editor can't filter out the goo, let's try this:
"Because if we make the wrong choice,'' Mr. Cheney said in Des Moines, "then the danger is that we'll get hit again. That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war.
Yes, the baritone remark is the worst type of journalism, usually empoyed by such luminaries as Rove or Limbaugh, but the content of the remark shouldn't be overlooked.
So, if we excise the Dowdian stupidity, is there an issue? Or shall we continue to worry the Dowd issue like a bunch of prom queens?
I'll attack the article then. Natty I wasn't attacking your post(heh, even though it strictly violates the elder's cut and paste rule). I was attacking Maureen Dowd's writing.
What Cheney is saying is that we cannot go back to a law enforcement(Kerry's term) strategy of preventing attacks on the US. We cannot wait to be attacked(Kerry's strategy), to strike back against terrorists or nations that support terrorists. We do not wait for the UN's thumbs up (Kerry's strategy) when defending our interests. The UN has not shared our interests for quite some time.
In light of this a Kerry victory in November poses a great danger to us. we have not had an attack against our soil since 9/11. I honestly believe we are in a "when not if" situation if we do not continually chase these terrorists, eventually eradicate them and change the nations that support them.
The issue to me is Cheney is claiming to be the safer bet after over 3k Americans died on 9/11 even though the current administration knew about Al Qaeda's desire to hurt us. And after 1k Americans have died in Iraq. And I can still walk on a plane with my Leatherman, which has a knife.
I find it offensive that he thinks we're stupid enough to believe him.
Which is BS...Kerry voted for 14 out of 18 defense spending bills.Quote:
Originally posted by EPSkis
Cheney thinks Kerry would prefer to shower the world in patchouli.
When Bush and Cheney were running the show.Quote:
Originally posted by mr_gyptian
we have not had an attack against our soil since 9/11.
I don't think either administration will fail in that regard. You'd have to be way dumber than Bush or Kerry to not hunt these guys before they strike.Quote:
I honestly believe we are in a "when not if" situation if we do not continually chase these terrorists, eventually eradicate them and change the nations that support them.
It's not a "claim". We haven't been attacked since 9/11, so I'll go out on a limb & say that it's working.Quote:
Originally posted by 365wp
The issue to me is Cheney is claiming to be the safer bet after over 3k Americans died on 9/11 even though the current administration knew about Al Qaeda's desire to hurt us. And after 1k Americans have died in Iraq. And I can still walk on a plane with my Leatherman, which has a knife.
I find it offensive that he thinks we're stupid enough to believe him.
Yes, 1000 Americans have died in Iraq. In a CNN poll last week, most Americans believed prior to the liberation of Iraq - that number would have been a lot higher. Americans have known for a couple hundred years that defending our way of life can & will exact a human toll - thankfully, those responsible for defending our Country & our way of life - haven't let that stop them.
It is a claim, because Cheney has no idea what is going to happen in the future. Correlation != causation, how do we know how many attacks we've foiled?Quote:
Originally posted by EPSkis
It's not a "claim". We haven't been attacked since 9/11, so I'll go out on a limb & say that it's working.
What are we defending in Iraq? Its not our way of life. Saddam was NO threat to "our way of life". Besides who are we to say that our way of life is better than another?Quote:
Originally posted by EPSkis
Americans have known for a couple hundred years that defending our way of life can & will exact a human toll - thankfully, those responsible for defending our Country & our way of life - haven't let that stop them.
Anyone see the 9-11 report on the History Channel? 9-11 could have been prevented had Condi Rice and Bush not ignored memos with titles like "Ben laden determined to attack on US soil"
I can't imagine Kerry regressing the American position concerning the war on terror. If forced to choose between Bush and Kerry, I'd vote for Kerry. However --
I'm voting Nader.
We've got to look past Bush and Kerry to understand why, what, and who we are as a country. The WOT is important, but so are domestic changes. We need to focus on democratic ideology instead of subjugating it to corporate interests such as oil and condiments.
Despite the false legal construct, corporations are not people and should not control democracy. Power (and Powder) to the People.
Bush/Cheney administration are responsible for the only large attack on our soil? What kind of proven track record is that?
The point of natty's post was just to emphasise that Cheney is an evil, self-serving, war mongering zombie with all the charisma of a pile of dog shit.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism? You have got to be shitting me! A vote for Bush is a vote for more money for the rich people, more unnecessary attacks on other sovereign nations, more soldiers in the grave. We're creating enemies faster than we can kill them. Bush singlehandedly took our country from having all of the sympathy and support in the world after 9/11 to becoming a hated, imperialistc greed squad as seen by the rest of the word. Fuck that moron.
Erik:
He said it. He was wrong. He did it on purpose. There is no way to spin this. There is no "context."Quote:
Addressing Republican supporters in Iowa, Mr Cheney said: “If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating.”
It's getting uglier by the day, folks, and we ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait 'til October - if the President isn't ahead by at least 10 points in the polls the Karl Rove Smear Machine will kick into OD.
Why even bother voting? What does your vote for Nader acomplish? I'll tell ya, it shows that you dont mind wasting your one voice in a very important election.Quote:
Originally posted by Rusty Nails
I'm voting Nader.
Hundreds of Republicans Injured in Rush to Discredit KerryQuote:
Originally posted by Tippster
It's getting uglier by the day, folks, and we ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait 'til October - if the President isn't ahead by at least 10 points in the polls the Karl Rove Smear Machine will kick into OD.
Rove is one scary mofo.
I'm voting for Maureen Dowd's sweet-hot sweetness.Quote:
Originally posted by Rusty Nails
I'm voting Nader.
http://www.sauguscenturions.com/klipfel/image207.JPG
Rowr.
SC,
Tell ya what, for the rest of your life you can take a defeatist attitude and pick between two options that a dark suit with deep pockets threw up on the screen in front of you. As for me, I'll continue to give the suit the finger and push for meaningful change even if it never goes anywhere. I know what your saying, but I hafta follow my own moral conscience.
I heart the Onion. :DQuote:
Originally posted by 365wp
Hundreds of Republicans Injured in Rush to Discredit Kerry
Rove is one scary mofo.
Jay - she's older now and has lost some of the yumminess in that picture:
http://www.nyodn.org/about/17.%20Dow...20Quindlan.jpg
Not surprisingly she's the one on the left... :D
Does anyone know if Carville is actually involved now? He's the guy we need against Rove.
And Rusty, while I can in theory admire your principled stand, if you can't see the differences in this election, and the importance of every single vote, I am surprised at you.
edit: spelun
Republicans Against Bush
It's a shame that real republicans (as opposed to those chest thumping ones that don't understand the contradictions between this president and his party) have nobody to vote for.
Whoa, well I asked. I thought maybe you were trolling. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Rusty Nails
SC,
Tell ya what, for the rest of your life you can take a defeatist attitude and pick between two options that a dark suit with deep pockets threw up on the screen in front of you. As for me, I'll continue to give the suit the finger and push for meaningful change even if it never goes anywhere. I know what your saying, but I hafta follow my own moral conscience.
Kerry is the only chance for change that we have-- if you want change, we have to get Bush out, PERIOD. Nader has no chance, in fact he is leaching from Kerry and in theory helping Bush.
But I got to give you much respect for sticking to yer guns.
Nader on the other hand, I think he is a egotistical fuck who obviously dosent care that he could be helping Bush get re-elected. Sticking to his guns or not, Nader is not doing the country any good by running.
my $.02
Quote:
Originally posted by iceman
Does anyone know if Carville is actually involved now? He's the guy we need against Rove.
And Rusty, while I can in theory admire your principled stand, if you can't see the differences in this election, and the importance of every single vote, I am surprised at you.
edit: spelun
Ice,
I am Alaskan resident voting with an absentee ballot. For some reason I don't think AK qualifies as a "battleground" state. Who knows, if I was an Ohio voter I might sell out... but I doubt it.
We do:Quote:
Originally posted by road trip
It's a shame that real republicans (as opposed to those chest thumping ones that don't understand the contradictions between this president and his party) have nobody to vote for.
libertarian
Second, Do you guys really think Kerry is any better? What the fuck would he do different??? Further, he's not going to win, and I'll tell you why. Your constant "anyone but Bush" will never beat an incumbant. Nobody even knows anything about Kerry except for the fact that he likes ketchup. Unfortunately Kerry's only marginally smarter than Bush and won't figure this out until after the election.
1080,
I was a registered libertarian for years & agree with the stance of the party on many things. The memebers I met during those years, tend to be hard core gun nuts & drug legalization suppporters, to the expense of all other issues.
I do like the local canidates they run thought, although occasionally they are wacko miltia types
From johnkerry.com:Quote:
Originally posted by 1080Rider
What the fuck would he do different???
"As president, John Kerry will reverse the Bush-Cheney rollbacks to our Clean Air Act"
That's a step in the right direction.
People don't know anything about Kerry because they don't take the time to go to his site and read about his position. They're just spoonfed crap by Rove and the Swift Boat gang and take it for the gospel.
I know this is not realy my place, but from the outside looking in it's getting kind of scary.......come onn guys live and let live, post what is good about your favorite contender not whats bad about the other guy.....
if it was my place to choose however the veiw is very scary, from a european perspective you have the choice of an Unknow Quantity wanting to do good but wavering a little(JFK), or a very scary so far right wing its not even funny (JB)and last and least the little green guy that lots of peeople would like to see win but don't dare vote for cause he will never get in(RN).