He uses big words and thinks there's something more important then American Idol. That's why we all hate him so.
How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison. Hey, bama put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yes...and extreme conservastism would be closer to conservstism than liberalism, no? That was the point.
Bush/Cheney have done nothing of the sort. It's just a Gore rant aimed at a sychophantic crowd of brainless, far-left whackoes known as Moveon.org. Like I said earlier, what's you solution, Mr. Gore? Run away like you and Clinton did from Somalia? Lob a couple of cruise missiles and call it day? Feel somebody's pain and then forget about it? We can not entrust national security to Democrats if we want to remain a nation. The Carter and Clinton administration showed that conclusively.
Yeah, the Clinton military did such a horrible job at taking over Iraq in 19 days. As the GOP has been so fond of saying lately, 9/11 changed everything. I am at least willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, given his service record and his statements on the subject. I think he has a FAR more effective plan for fighting terrorism than the Bushies do.
See, there you go with that "Clinton military" bull again. Well, if the "Clinton" military was so great, well, why do we need more troops? Why is it that the same folks who gleefully pared down military budgets in the 1990's now b**** about not having enough troops, eh? Name one weapons system started by the Clinton-era Defense Dept. that we fielded in this war. The answer is.....zilch. Our military uses the same teen-series of fighters (F-15, F-14, F-16, F-18) we used during the Reagan years. We use the same M-1A1 tanks intended for Cold War battles in Germany. To say that a military was "Clinton's" is a lie because every single weapons system we used over there was developed at the behest of Reagan's defense dept. Clinton did nothing to develop new weapons systems. In fact, he cut some weapons systems (F-111 bomber, A-6 navy attack planes) that were vital to our defenses. So don't even bark at me about the "Clinton" military. It is a sham and a lie. You're a liberal, Andy. Of course you're going to like any plan of Gore's (his plan is simple- surrender to the will of the corrupt UN) since that is what you are. Come out of the closet. Be who you are.
By the way, Cox and Dash just died. I do think Gore was wrong in comparing W to Nixon. W stands alone, mainly because we have few national GOP leaders willing to put the country ahead of party.
Well of course... but that wasn't the point was it? You posted the definition of "conservate" and of "reactionary." In sum a reactionary was an extreme conservative-- making the word "extreme" operative. How about: conservative > reactionary as liberal > wacko?
Heh? I said that conservatism is, by definition, less flexible, and more prone to reactionism. I asked Jeff if he agreed with this. He said no. I posted the definitions to support my claim that conservatism is more alligned with reactionism than liberalism. And you're arguing what, exactly? If I were to suggest that liberals were more flexible, and more prone to, say, socialism, would you disagree? Does that mean I'm calling all liberals socialists? I donlt know what point you;re arguing here, but it seems pretty clear to me. Do you agree that conservatism, by definition, is less flexible and more prone o reactionism than liberalism? This is not a condemnation of conservatism...many see moral flexibility as more bad than good, and this is merely one aspect of the debate, but do you agree with that central point? It seems to me that, by defintion of both conservatism and reactionism, it's a fairly self explanatory one.
There are two types of conservatism. Fiscal, and Social. Jeff, from what I've seen, probably thinks of himself more as a fiscal conservative, which there is nothing really reactionary about that. Less government, less spending. But then there is the social conservativism that really wants to keep things status quo, and by definition, that is reactionary. Gay Marriage, no can't have that. On down through time, as this country has progressed, and I'm not arguing for gay marriage, but the social consevative has been on the reactionary side of the issue. And that's not saying that the social conservative is always wrong, and that progress is always good, but by definition, its reactionary.
Reactionism is, by definition, an "extreme" conservatism position. I think it has nothing to do with liberalism-- thus my syllogism. I thought you were trying to equate conservatism with reactionism. Nevermind. Carry on.
This is a bunch of superficial toss. Gore's point was that the AG prison scandal is a very bad thing that happen on GWB's watch (FACT), that our international reputation is hurt by AG (FACT), and that GWB irresponsible policies fostered the environment that lead to AG (OPINION based on some facts). You appear to have a problem with Gore (and Clinton). Anything Gore says from your prespective is wrong. I suppose FACTs becomes FICTION, if Gore speaks it. (And you think everything Clinton did was also wrong. This pegs my BS meter. Everything that happened during Cinton's 8 years of presidency, good or bad, is not Clinton's fault. This shallow read supposes that the Congress was Clinton's complete and total b*tch. Since the Reps controlled Congress most of Clinton's years, this becomes a major stretch.) Hey bama, if you want a balanced budget, vote for Kerry (or for a Democratic Congress). GWB and a Republican Congress have shown no commitment to fiscal restraint. Putting Kerry in the WH would revert the Republican Congress back to it budget balancing ways as seen in the Clinton years. A vote for GWB is a vote for an ever growing budget deficit.
That still doesn't mean Bush is to blame for the sex orgies, etc. And Gore pointed the finger at him. What about the good things that happen on GWB's watch? The new schools being built there? The medication and immunization that kids are getting now? The electricity that cities have now. Saddam limited some cities to 6 hours of electricity a day. That's just a few things going on but you won't hear about them from Gore or Kerry (not that I would expect you to).
Blame is not a black and white issue. GWB was CiC so he deserves some of the blame. The extent thereof is debatable.
A) 'Sex orgies' is an obviously dismissive version of the torture, sexual and otherwise, that we are talking about. Is it intentionally so? B) To what degree is Bush not to blame? He appointed those who oversaw our widespread departure from international law and agreements, he fostered the climate of 'With us or against us', wherein those against us were deemed evil, which goes a long way to treating them as less than human, and he himself stated on many occassions that the US need no longer abide by international conventions. P.S. For the record, until the day he died, Nixon said he never knew of or approved of the Watergate break-ins, and most experts believe him. Doesn't alter the fact that he shares the blame.
