Well that’s where I part ways with Mr. Kerry. I don’t believe Iraq ever was a threat to the U.S. Saddam wasn’t a nice guy; that’s for sure. But a threat to the U.S.? Nope. I wouldn’t have authorized ten cents for Bush, no matter how many promises he made about only being a last resort.
However, while the facts on the ground may not have changed, if we had allowed the inspections to continue, as our allies wanted to do, instead of chomping at the bit and rushing to war, we may very well have discovered what the facts were.
Similarly, you can say of CBS: To make money by pandering to a specific demographic of low IQ liberal sheep with credit cards.
So what? Or were you just trying to take a cheap shot at conservatives?
As to Abu Graibe - I think Kerry stayed away from the issue for fear of bringing up any connection to his 70’s anti-Vietnam speeches wherein he implied the U.S. was the worst offenders in terms of breaking Geneva Conventions.
The notion that CBS or any other network has a liberal bias is a complete fantasy of the right. There is only one network with a tangible political bias and that is Fox News.
Well, great. But I was talking about the post-debate polls, because this thread is about the debate.
Honest and truly? So you absolutely deny that ts propagandist, conservative slant is an essential part of its mission? Direct answer first. Circumlocution later, this time.
Oh, thanks for clearing that up for me, I guess we didn’t need all those threads discussing this issue, we could have just asked you.
Either way, it doesn’t explain why you needed to refer to bias towards “low IQ conservative sheep” rather than simply a conservative bias.
Regarding the debate - overall I think it was a somewhat useful one comparatively speaking; at least there were several points where you could point out definite difference of opinion. In that light, “who won” is the American people.
Ah, PeeQueue! You have touched upon one of my favorite pet peeves! Prepare to be thoroughly depantsed.
The idea of a liberal slant is ridiculous. Only the ignorant believe it. I will now prove it by making a falsifiable case. A falsifiable case, for you uninducted mopes out there, means a case based on facts and logic that can be shown to be false in the circumstance that it actually is.
Starting in 1992 we heard that the Clintons were guilty of some horrible nameless crime in a land deal called Whitewater (a story which, by the way, was broken by the famously liberal New York Times). What they did was so horrible that they killed Vincent Foster and a few dozen other people for knowing too much. In truth, they were exonnerated three times. It was complete horseshit but we heard about it day after day after day for seven years.
Then Al Gore ran for president whereupon the media told us that Al Gore was this weird lying exaggerator. For one thing he said he was the model for the lead character in love story. Of coure Gore only said it once and the book’s author said the exact same thing first. Then he said he invented the Internet! What a delusional jerk! Only problem is, he never said that. By comparison, we were told that George Bush is this straight-talking, populist he-man. Nuff said.
When Bush won the election (oh, excuse me — when he was named president by the Supreme Court) his staff claimed that the Clinton people vandalized the White House even going so far as to remove all the W’s from all the keypads. Unfortuately that was horseshit too.
Then the war with Iraq came. Saddam was involved with 911! He an Osama bin Laden were in Cahoots! There were weapons of mass destruction! Saddam is an imminent threat! We never said he was an imminent threat!
All these stories favored the conservative slant, were big and turned out to be total horseshit.
All you have to do to convince me that there’s a liberal slant to the news media is show me how the liberals have managed to dominate the media in the same way and you’ll win the point.
My appologies. I meant that I understand that the fresh start argument has validity. I did not mean to suggest that I am an expert on any nuances of this argument. If I have missed something, I sincerely would appreciate any corrections.
Having said that, your explanation seems to be a restatement of what blowero said. That is that some allies are so upset with Bush himself that they will refuse to deal with us until he is gone. As I said, I see that this argument has some validity. But it still seems to fall far short of being the sort of complete course correct that Kerry seems to be promising.
Agreed.
Ok, but this seems overly simplistic. I really don’t think the French believe that none of their objections would be listened to “no matter what they say or do”. We have often had foriegn affairs disagreements with them. Our alliance has always endured.
So, I guess I agree that a new president does indeed present a chance for a fresh start. But I disagree that it really presents enough of a fresh start to bring French troops or money into Iraq. At least in enough numbers to reduce the 90 percent of casualties or 90 percent of costs problem Kerry seems to think it will alleviate.
Well, because I don’t understand this level of the argument, I suppose.
If Bush has no chance and Kerry has some chance to get French, German, or Russian troops or money into Iraq then you are correct. But that is a pretty big if in my opinion. Especially since it seems to rest only on the idea that Kerry is a different president. I haven’t seen enough evidence that nations are so fixated on personal snubs that they will completely ignore thier own national interests. I am not saying that nations will ignore snubs. I am not saying that snubs are not important.
You asked a hypothetical about how Fox would report certain polls, so I gave a response based on how they had reported other polls in the past. I don’t know any other way to respond to such a hypothetical unless all you wanted was my opinion. Unless you think there is something inherently unique about debate polls. Sorry to have allowed some facts to get in the way.
I don’t know what its mission is.
I will assert that if you watch nothing but Fox News for a week, there will be no significant news item you will miss. Whether they “slant” the news one way or another and whether or not other networks don’t is hard to say. They may be more conservatively oriented overall in their editorial analysis, not unlike the NYT’s editorial page has a liberal bias. But if you watch, say, Brit Hume’s “Special Report”, he reports the news for 40 minutes, then offers a 20 minute roundtable with both liberal and conservative viewpoints.
And I could point to analysts at other networks, like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC, who is at least as conservative as Fox’s most conservative analysis, Sean Hannity.
I did not mean to suggest that you were an expert in the nuances of this argument. I apologize, if you took it that way.
I think this is where we start parting in our beliefs in this argument. I agree that our alliance has endured “troubled times”… but I’m not necessarily suggesting that our relationship with France will never be mended. I just think that it won’t be mended while Bush is in office. (You do remember how bad it got over here, right? With the Freedom Fries, and “Kerry looks like he’s French.” etc… the vitriol wasn’t anything that should be taken particularly lightly, IMO.)
This is the part, I believe, where we will have to agree to disagree, since it’s really just conjecture (on both our parts); I believe that within 6 months of taking office, Kerry would be able to re-establilsh our ties with France and Germany, and get the point across: “We need your help.” I would like to think that our allies would come to our aid, if we admit that we acted in a rash manner, and need their help. I don’t see Bush admitting to anything, in the future.
But like I said, the parts we are seeming to really disagree on are just a difference in our opinions of what the future holds.
I didn’t manage to stay awake to watch the debate live, so I just watched the whole thing on ITN. Fortunately I’d already read this thread so I knew what to expect - though I missed out on the drinking games - I confess I watched it while drinking a mug of cocoa. [how tame!!]
The pronunciation thing that got to me most was Bush’s ‘duty’ - he kept talking about my doody to my country, to the american people etc. I was waiting too for Bush to say ‘flipflopper’ - which he didn’t - though he sure managed to find enough other euphemisms for that.
I was disappointed that Kerry didn’t talk about the massive civilian deaths and casualties in Iraq that are directly attributable to Bush’s WOT, especially after Bush referred to those children who died in Russia. My immediate thought was that Bush is such a hypocrite - or maybe he thinks it’s OK to kill kids by bombing the hell outa them.
I didn’t see Bush’s ‘folksy charm’ either - that I’ve read about in the papers - to me he came across as nervous and a bit dithery.
Actually, FOX News does not seem to me so much worse that the news of other networks. It’s all the other programming such as Hannity and whatnot that gives it its polished right-wing aura.
Sure, our alliance has endured, if by that you mean we aren’t at war with France, but I think it rather obtuse to believe that Bush hasn’t made a mess of relations with our allies. And honestly, I can’t think of a previous president who has demonstrated such poor diplomatic skills as Bush, so I don’t know that I’d consider what has “always happened” up until Bush became president to be relevant. I really think you’re looking at Bush through partisan eyes if you think he’s going to be able to accomplish, in a second term, what he failed to (or really, refused to) accomplish in his first term.
And it’s not just that I think Bush has burned his bridges and can’t ever regain that cooperation, it’s also that I don’t see any reason to believe that he would even try. Bush wanted it this way. He thought the U.S. would get all the “spoils” of Iraq, except that it turned out there really weren’t any spoils to be had. He wanted to go it alone. He had his chance and he blew it - end of story.
Please don’t throw out names of logical fallacies when you have no idea what they mean. :rolleyes: You asked why Germany, France or Russia would have any interest in Iraq unless they were paid. I was actually trying to be gentle with my answer, but if you’re going to get snippy about it, I’ll just come right out and say that that’s about the stupidest, most ignorant question I’ve ever heard. It demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of how international diplomacy works.
No, it’s based on the idea that Kerry favors mulilateralism, while Bush favors unilateralism. It is a crucial ideological difference. Unilateralism failed, so I’m voting for the candidate who favor multilateralism.
Well I disagree. I think things can and have been accomplished via diplomacy. I reject the notion that our allies are just going to do whatever they want and that there’s no point in talking to them.
Well, at least Hannity has Colms to balance things out a bit. Colms is a weenie, but he’s still there to represent the liberal side. If you want to see a **REAL **conservative gab fest, watch Scarborough on MSNBC.
Well, I didn’t say he would get France to bring troops into Iraq either. But while we are on the subject, I think you are looking at Bush through partisan eyes as well to come to the conclusion that our alliances are in the “mess” you think they are in.
I was not trying to say that you used a logical fallacy. I was trying to be brief in order to avoid the sort of offence you tend to take when I dismiss statements which hade nothing to do with what I said.
No. You completely made that up. I asked what Kerry was going to do to get any of those countries to contribute enough troops or money to defray the 90% - 90% problem he is complaining about. I never said anything like they would have to be paid. I did offer that as an option, but never even hinted that it was the only and exclusive option available. Which you then assumed I said and asked your questions accordingly. Since I did not say that, I dissmissed your question.
Well, yes. If any ever says that payment is the only way alliances get formed then I will join you. Let me know if you run accross anyone so stupid.
This is a fair assessment. In any future war. In Iraq, I really don’t see how it will help. This was the aspect of Kerry’s comments I was questioning.
This is such a non sequitor from the quoted part of my post that I do not even know how to respond. If any part of any of my posts have ever led you to believe that I think diplomacy cannot ever accomplish anything then I would humbly ask you to reread it first and ask for a clarification later.
Please do not attribute your hatred of Bush to me.
