SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: altair19 who wrote (66277)11/5/2004 3:57:13 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
seattlepi.nwsource.com

-s2@atLeastTheRedSoxWon.com



To: altair19 who wrote (66277)11/5/2004 3:59:54 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Sorry.....if he had told the truth it would have been one thing but taking direction from the enemy, meeting secretly with the enemy? uh-uh....How many of you are honored as war heros in Hanoi....? How many of you participated in discussions to assassinate US elected officials....How many of you had your words used to torture your comrades....?

Dissent is one thing....aiding the enemy is another....

J.



To: altair19 who wrote (66277)11/5/2004 4:21:07 PM
From: Suma  Respond to of 89467
 
I was with the Army in 1952 and heard the stories of torture,rape and killings of civilians from the soldiers who participated. I was only 21 and it almost put me into a nervous breakdown. I had thought we gave out Hershey bars and love to everyone... myopic WW II.. vision.

So, I really looked at war and what it could do and does to men. And if women were involved the same thing, look at the women at the prison who was just tried as a criminal.

I agree with you. The social conscience of the country had to be awakened and I admired those who could admit they were wrong, made a mistake. This pious I am never wrong nor do I make a mistake attitude that Bush has projected was one big thing I have had against him. Is he a robot or human ?



To: altair19 who wrote (66277)11/6/2004 3:16:21 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 89467
 
I see. Intentionally lying under oath about fictitious war
crimes is "honorable". Those lies directly led to additional
mistreatment of POW's, but they suffered for the "greater
good", so Kerry is a "hero" worthy of being President.

Meeting secretly with the enemy, then returning to America &
demanding that Nixon agree to the commies terms; although he
committed acts of treachery, you consider it honorable
because Kerry & his anti-war peers had passed off their
propaganda & poisoned the minds of millions of Americans. So
again, in your mind, Kerry's treachery is "honorable" & he is
worthy of being President.

Kerry met secretly with conspirators who wanted to
assassinate US Senators who were in favor of winning the
Vietnam war. Since Kerry's vicious, intentional lies & his
intentionals acts of treachery had already poisoned much of
America against the war, he was acting for the "greater
good". In your mind that makes Kerry "heroic" & should be
forgiven for not taking any action to expose this horrific
crime. Again, in your mind, Kerry he is worthy of being President.

Get real!



To: altair19 who wrote (66277)11/7/2004 1:12:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Rove's Revenge
_______________________________

By MAUREEN DOWD
OP-ED COLUMNIST
THE NEW YORK TIMES
November 7, 2004

WASHINGTON — Just how much did Karl Rove hate not being one of the cool guys in high school in the 60's? Enough to hatch schemes to marshal the forces of darkness to take over the country?

Oh, yeah.

A supporter of Nixon against Kennedy at 9, the teenage Karl was, in his description, "a big nerd," a small guy with a pocket protector, briefcase, and glasses almost as big as his head.

Even as a high school debater in Salt Lake City, "Rove didn't just want to win; he wanted the opponents destroyed," write James Moore and Wayne Slater in "Bush's Brain." "He would defeat them, slaughter them and humiliate them."

The Boy Genius, as W. calls him, the "architect" who helped him get the second term he dearly wanted to surpass his father, is happy to crush the liberal elites inspired by Kennedy's New Frontier under the steamroller of 19th-century family values.

Like the president, vice president and defense secretary, General Karl wanted to wipe out the gray, if-it-feels-good-do-it, blame-America-first, doused-in-Vietnam-guilt 60's and turn the clock back to the black-and-white Manichaean values of the 50's.

W. and Karl played up western movie stereotypes. After 9/11, the rugged frontier myth, the hunter/Indian-fighter hero in a war of civilization against savagery worked better than ever. But this White House's frontier is not a place of infinite progress and expansion, stretching society's boundaries. It doesn't battle primitivism; it courts primitivism.

Instead of the New Frontier, Karl and W. offer the New Backtier.

Even as a child, I could feel the rush of J.F.K.'s presidency racing forward, opening up a thrilling world of possibilities and modernity. We were going to the moon. We were confronting racial intolerance. We were paying any price and bearing any burden for freedom. We were respecting faith but keeping it out of politics. Our president was inspiring much of the world. Our first lady was setting the pace in style and culture.

W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches.

America has always had strains of isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism. But most of our leaders, even our devout presidents, have tried to keep these impulses under control. Not this crew. They don't call to our better angels; they summon our nasty devils.

Jimmy Carter won the evangelical vote in 1976, and he won it in Ohio. He combined his evangelical appeal with a call for social justice, integrating his church and laboring for world peace. But W. appealed to that vote's most crabbed insecurities - the disparaging of the other, the fear of those godless hedonists in the blue states out to get them and their families. And the fear of scientific progress, as with stem cell research.

When William Jennings Bryan took up combating the theory of evolution, he did it because he despised the social Darwinists who used the theory to justify the "survival of the fittest" in capitalism. Bryan hated anything that justified an economic system that crushed poor workers and farmers, and he hated that the elites would claim there was scientific basis for keeping society divided and unequal.

The new evangelicals challenge science because they've been stirred up to object to social engineering on behalf of society's most vulnerable: the poor, the sick, the sexually different.

Yet the Bush conservatives do their own social engineering. They thought they could toughen up the American character with the invasion of Iraq. Now they want to reshape the country on "moral" issues - though their morality seems to allow them to run a campaign full of blatant distortions and character assassination, and to mislead the public about the war.

Back in 1994, Newt Gingrich said he wanted the government to mold the moral character of Americans and wipe out remnants of the "counterculture McGoverniks." He got derailed, but now he and his pious friends are back in full cry, messing with our psyches and excluding themselves from the rules they demand others follow. They'll eventually do themselves in, but will they do us in first?

nytimes.com