user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
My guess:
After 9/11, Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. IMO, he chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shoot-out with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons -- or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies -- you were being unpatriotic.
They may not be true patriots but are more patriotic than the Democrats. The American people (for the most part) only pay attention to the relative difference.
MrTroche: Let me ask you directly: Do you believe Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft are more patriotic than Kerry, McCain, Cleland?
Take your time and really think about that question, please. I'm not talking "do you agree with policies," I am talking *Which group is more patriotic*.
They are more patriotic than Kerry. Not more patriotic than McCain but he's not a Democrat. I don't know enough about Cleland to judge.
Bush opted for the easy solution (solution???). What he did was stub his toe and then kick the couch. It worked (in the popular sense) too--we sucked up the IMBEDDED REPORTERS.
MrTroche, I agree with you 100%--especially the part where you say you don't know enough. Bush & Chaney patriotic? I don't even know where to begin.
It runs on stolen oil. ;)
Sorry to hear that, MT. I had hoped that you would be one to separate anti-war sentiment from "patriotism."
This has nothing to do with the war. I think the war is somewhat anti-American. Kerry is unpattriotic because he supports socialisy policies and bending over for the UN and EU.
elvis-
I'm glad you agree that Kerry is not a patriot.
So is the gist of this ballot that only those americans who have served in the military can claim to be patriots? Are you sure you want to take that stance cath, because it's going to kill the democrats.
herz: No, no ... that's not the intended thrust. It is more the incredible cognitive dissonance of someone in a feeble position calling someone in a stronger position *weak.*
Whether they are weak or not is moot ... by the very definitions he has historically used, his position is worse.
It is not so much whether his criteria is accurate as it is *is his criteria consistent and logical by his own historic standards.*
As I've stated before, I do not believe military service is requirement for the presidency. I am just stunned at the Selective Awareness at play.
Now, conversely, it is disengenuous of the Left to be gloating about Kerry's war record ... something they never acknowledged in Right candidates ... and sometimes decried.
But ... that is another ballot.
I don't think bush ever said serving in vietnam was the patriotic thing to do, what self proclaimed criteria did he break?
herz: Agreed ... he *couldn't* have said that.
Bush's team (I don't personalize this solely on Bush) is in a bad spot: Usually Republicans can parade military service and snipe at commie-Dems who failed to serve for one reason or another.
But this time ... the roles are reversed. Actually, I'd be still-unimpressed with military service (I don't view it as a requirement for patriotism). BUT, the Bush team seems to be in some Bizarro world where they take everything they once knew and reverse it ... without even blushing.
I can see them making petty political points if both had served ... they'll always try to see who can pee farther. But ... Bush is a eunuch in this area ... a chihuahua barking at a German Shepherd. It gets embarrassing to watch.
That's just the thing, he isn't bragging about his war record, kerry is.
If you're saying he's bragging about being more patriotic than kerry, when he clearly isn't, then the only way you can really support that argument is by claiming that only those who served in the military are patriotic.
It is possible for a civilian to be very patriotic and a decorated veteran to be very unpatriotic. Benedict arnold for instance.
If that's not what you're getting at could you please clarify?
Oh I agree! But ...
#1: That goes against several decades of Republican assertions. I suggest that any policy that changes depending upon whether it can be applied to your candidate is a weak one.
#2: I agree about civilian vs military being spurious in terms of patriotism ... but too many of the populace does not. I don't like it, but I can see why Kerry takes that route.
#3: Bush's own record is SO feeble ... he'd maintain more dignity if his Attack Teams ignored the military aspects.
Both sides have changed their opinions on this issue, it's not fair to single out bush and ignore the democrats.
Personally I'd rather both sides ignore this and focus on something more relevent. Like what they've done in the government in the past decade or so, rather than something that happened 40 years ago and wasn't really that important to begin with.
herz: I agree! Both sides are disengenuous on this topic.
It's just that it is so FLAGRANT on the Bush side. ;-)
That's rather subjective wouldn't you say?
Up to a point, it would be.
Given what I see inf ront of me ... I think it actually crosses into an objective assessment. Some things are just *too* egregious.
Same way that they can claim John Kerry is the most liberal senator: They deceive.
|
|
