Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Orion27 · Mar 5, 2004, 09:47 AM

Senator Lieberman warns Kerry not to divide the country. The hypocritical attacks on George Bush evoking the memory or 911 are astounding. Kerry, without havinng to remind you has as th cornerston of his campaign, the politicalization of the Vietnam War. Kerry's record on defense is nothing less than unilateral disarmament. We need a strong national defense. And as far as this protectionist bent these Dems have latched on to. I would imagine their environmentalist base would be happy to ses all these polluting industrial jobs move offshore, especially textiles. Population reduction, no jobs = no SUV''s on the road. Wasn't that why the Dems supported Kyoto? That was unilateral industrial industrial disarmament. Gee, the Dems and big labor have done wonders for this country.

Nonsuch · Mar 5, 2004, 11:16 AM

What a fascinating conversation you seem to be having with yourself.

Lerkfish · Mar 5, 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Orion27:
The hypocritical attacks on George Bush evoking the memory or 911 are astounding.

but...when George uses 9/11 to campaign its tasteful and positive....right? Do you think republicans have copyrighted 9/11? Interestingly cynical of you, but you may be right.

Zimphire · Mar 5, 2004, 11:29 AM

Yet NOTHING was said about Clinton arranging the pebbles in the shape of a cross at the Normandy beach for mere press propaganda.

Millennium · Mar 5, 2004, 11:33 AM

As Zippy tries his hand at political commentary...

MindFad · Mar 5, 2004, 11:35 AM

Those pebbles were a damn tragedy, too.

saranwarp · Mar 5, 2004, 11:36 AM

As long as we're getting into the previous administration, imagine the uproar from the chattering classes if Hillary Clinton had done this.

ghost_flash · Mar 5, 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but...when George uses 9/11 to campaign its tasteful and positive....right? Do you think republicans have copyrighted 9/11? Interestingly cynical of you, but you may be right.

I don't see a problem with Democrats using anything from 9/11 to bolster their campaign efforts...

Zimphire · Mar 5, 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
As Zippy tries his hand at political commentary...

What would you call this?

My point was ALL presidents do the press thing. For the dems to start hissing and honking and saying HOW SHAMEFUL OF BUSH! Is silly.

This election will not be won by petty hatefulness. You can bet that.

Most people see right through it.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 5, 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but...when George uses 9/11 to campaign its tasteful and positive....right? Do you think republicans have copyrighted 9/11? Interestingly cynical of you, but you may be right.

Is there something preventing Democrats from talking about 9/11? September 11 was a huge thing that happened to the country. It happened to all of us, Democrats and Republicans. It's not off limits to either party.

Actually, I'd be profoundly reassured if Democrats would discuss it more. I want to know how a Democratic nominee would manage the war on terror as president. I want to know that this is an important issue to him, and that he "gets it." I don't think I'm alone in that. I would feel easier pulling the lever for a Democrat if I didn't get the feeling he wants to splice 9/11 out of history as if it never happened.

Lerkfish · Mar 5, 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I don't see a problem with Democrats using anything from 9/11 to bolster their campaign efforts...

apparently Orion27 disagrees.

Orion27 · Mar 5, 2004, 11:49 AM

i have no problem Democrats evoking 911 and their response to it. Just put it out the in an
ad. I can think of two ad scenario based no the rhetoric of the Dems.
1. plane fying into to trade towers.. voice over... President Bush knew about the the threat to the trade towers and failed to warn us..
2. 911 body bags.....Bush failed us then... Irag body bags... and he fails us now.
Now that would be honest.

Lerkfish · Mar 5, 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is there something preventing Democrats from talking about 9/11? September 11 was a huge thing that happened to the country. It happend to all of us, Democrats and Republicans. It's not off limits to either party.

Actually, I'd be profoundly reassured if Democrats would discuss it more. I want to know how a Democratic nominee would manage the war on terror as president. I want to know that this is an important issue to him, and that he "gets it." I don't think I'm alone in that. I would feel easier pulling the lever for a Democrat if I didn't get the feeling he wants to splice 9/11 out of history as if it never happened.

um...hello? read the first post. It was to that I was responding. Context is everything.

Zimphire · Mar 5, 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is there something preventing Democrats from talking about 9/11? September 11 was a huge thing that happened to the country. It happened to all of us, Democrats and Republicans. It's not off limits to either party.

Actually, I'd be profoundly reassured if Democrats would discuss it more. I want to know how a Democratic nominee would manage the war on terror as president. I want to know that this is an important issue to him, and that he "gets it." I don't think I'm alone in that. I would feel easier pulling the lever for a Democrat if I didn't get the feeling he wants to splice 9/11 out of history as if it never happened.

'

Simey Bush did it so it must be bad. As soon as you come around to their way of thinking the better.

Remember anything Bush does = Bad.

No matter if they approved Clinton doing the same thing.

Lerkfish · Mar 5, 2004, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Orion27:
i have no problem Democrats evoking 911 and their response to it. Just put it out the in an
ad. I can think of two ad scenario based no the rhetoric of the Dems.
1. plane fying into to trade towers.. voice over... President Bush knew about the the threat to the trade towers and failed to warn us..
2. 911 body bags.....Bush failed us then... Irag body bags... and he fails us now.
Now that would be honest.

then I completely misunderstood your first post. IF so, I apologize for the error.

Zimphire · Mar 5, 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Orion27:
i have no problem Democrats evoking 911 and their response to it. Just put it out the in an
ad. I can think of two ad scenario based no the rhetoric of the Dems.
1. plane fying into to trade towers.. voice over... President Bush knew about the the threat to the trade towers and failed to warn us..
2. 911 body bags.....Bush failed us then... Irag body bags... and he fails us now.
Now that would be honest.

That would be your typical FUD political leftist commercial yes you are correct.

Does it have any resemblance to what actually happened? Of course not.

But hey, it's not what is true that it's important! It's the seriousness of the accusations!

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 5, 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um...hello? read the first post. It was to that I was responding. Context is everything.

Well, I have a hard time making it though that rambling post. That's why I responded to yours.

The point still stands. 9/11 ought not to be off limits to either party. It should be part of the national debate in the election to be discussed maturely. How can we choose our next commander in chief if we are told to "ignore the elephant in the room"?

Orion27 · Mar 5, 2004, 12:11 PM

There is no way the Democrats can compete on national security. it's interesting there has been no discussion of the jobs issue here. Must be mostly realistic "moderates" on the left here. I would really like to know how recinding the tax cuts, putting tariffs on imports and
and relaxing the immigration policies will create more jobs and protect the "middle class"?

hyteckit · Mar 5, 2004, 12:15 PM

Oh Brother. Bush already divided the country. Even Bush admits it.

theolein · Mar 5, 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
As Zippy tries his hand at political commentary...

I love you. man

First good laugh I've had today.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 5, 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Oh Brother. Bush already divided the country. Even Bush admits it.

This is a republic with multiple political parties. Of course the country is divided. It would be unhealthy if it were to be otherwise. Only dictatorsips with their 100%-voted-for-the-Party "elections" are united.

E Pluribus Unum.

ghost_flash · Mar 5, 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
I love you. man First good laugh I've had today.

Brown nose.

Zimphire · Mar 5, 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
I love you. man First good laugh I've had today.

Yeah Mill is setting a good example for the rest of us.

No wonder he is a mod.

Gee-Man · Mar 5, 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yet NOTHING was said about Clinton arranging the pebbles in the shape of a cross at the Normandy beach for mere press propaganda.

Is it even conceivable for you to respond to a comment about Bush WITHOUT bringing up Clinton?

Gee-Man · Mar 5, 2004, 02:00 PM

To the original poster:

The country is already divided. It has nothing to do with Democrats, and everything to do with a little something called diversity. People have different viewpoints, and that causes people to want to support one candidate or another.

Democrats are no more "dividers" than Republicans are.

Zimphire · Mar 5, 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
Is it even conceivable for you to respond to a comment about Bush WITHOUT bringing up Clinton?

Oh I have.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy and what this is REALLY about.

To do that you have to show how a group reacted when something similar happened on THEIR side.

I know it upsets the Clintonites. They don't like salt being put on old wounds.. but it does need to be brought up when petty political zealotry shows it's face.

Lerkfish · Mar 5, 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
Is it even conceivable for you to respond to a comment about Bush WITHOUT bringing up Clinton?

physically impossible.

Lerkfish · Mar 5, 2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, I have a hard time making it though that rambling post. That's why I responded to yours.

The point still stands. 9/11 ought not to be off limits to either party. It should be part of the national debate in the election to be discussed maturely. How can we choose our next commander in chief if we are told to "ignore the elephant in the room"?

right. That's why I asked: do the republicans have a copyright on using 9/11.
I'm making the exact same point you are: BOTH sides should be able to use it...
My question in this and the other thread is merely why republicans would want to. I don't think it leaves them in a favorable light, if you think about it.

However, I think I misunderstood the original rambling post, I thought at first read he was saying democrats CAN"T use the same issue. I thought he was saying only republicans could....on rereading it I don't think that's what he was saying.

But, that's why I responded as i did.

Zimphire · Mar 5, 2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
physically impossible.

forever, constantly, always, and other extreme words.

Gee-Man · Mar 5, 2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh I have.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy and what this is REALLY about.

To do that you have to show how a group reacted when something similar happened on THEIR side.

I know it upsets the Clintonites. They don't like salt being put on old wounds.. but it does need to be brought up when petty political zealotry shows it's face.

I know this may be difficult for you to accept, but there are many people out there, myself included, who strongly disagree with many of the Bush administration's policies and practices. I don't care about Clinton. I never liked much of what he did either, although in a general sense I believe he was "better" (quotes for emphasis). But you seem to have a habit of dismissing EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT about the Bush administration as "petty political zealotry".

Address the here and now, not "old wounds". "Clinton did such-and-such, and you accepted it" is a poor counter-argument - and unless you have proof that a particular person reacted a certain way to events of several years ago, you cannot claim hypocrisy, period. You can keep beating that hypocrisy drum, but there's no sound coming out of it.

spacefreak · Mar 5, 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Only dictatorsips with their 100%-voted-for-the-Party "elections" are united.

Don't forget that 100% turnout, too. In a country of 25 million (Iraq), not one person was so sick or bedridden as to not be able to make it to the polls.

Now that's voter participation!

Zimphire · Mar 5, 2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
I know this may be difficult for you to accept, but there are many people out there, myself included, who strongly disagree with many of the Bush administration's policies and practices.

No, I accept that.

I don't care about Clinton. I never liked much of what he did either, although in a general sense I believe he was "better" (quotes for emphasis). But you seem to have a habit of dismissing EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT about the Bush administration as "petty political zealotry".

No I don't. It's just a lot of complaints in here are just that. In other forums where people are actually not petty about it and aren't Bush hating zealots I too Bush bash with the best of them.

Address the here and now, not "old wounds". "Clinton did such-and-such, and you accepted it" is a poor counter-argument - and unless you have proof that a particular person reacted a certain way to events of several years ago, you cannot claim hypocrisy, period. You can keep beating that hypocrisy drum, but there's no sound coming out of it.

I am talking about the Dems as a whole reacting one way towards their guy, and a different way to the other guy.

It happens on both sides. And yes I do point it out.