He never voted in favor of the war.
Speaking of cartoons, this one reminds me a bit of the right-wingers on the board:
Pfft, here’s one–Kerry knows that 9/11 was planned by Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein, that puts him one up on Bush. Should we link to the 2000 interview with Bush in which he couldn’t name any world leaders, referred to the Greeks as “Grecians”? Should we refer to his admissions that he doesn’t read books or magazines?
Bush is a nimrod and so are you for supporting him.
This bothers me, too. I expect the current administration to say they would have voted for war. Why would Kerry have voted for the war knowing what he now knows? It. Makes. No. Sense.
Also, Kerry, while he hasn’t supported an amendment to the Constitution, also defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Although Bush has gone on record as saying he wants to amend the Constitution, Cheney believes it should be left to the states. I sincerely believe Bush is pandering to the Religious Wrong in this instance. No, it doesn’t make it right and it certainly doesn’t excuse it but I don’t think Kerry’s going to actually do anything about it. In other words, I see little difference between the two candidates in this arena.
Una Persson, everything you said makes a great deal of sense. I really wanted Kerry to convince me to vote for him during the debate. Really. He didn’t. He had nothing to say. True, he said it more eloquently and much better than Bush, but, in essence, it boiled down to nothing. As to the sleaze, Kerry’s going to be only slightly less sleazier than Bush and Co. He’s a politician and I don’t trust them any further than I can throw them.
Finally, can some dutiful Republican point me to a link to the President’s plan for finishing the job in Iraq? I searched georgebush.com and gop.com but all I can find are links to speeches and vague references to national security strategies.
I’ll take indifference to active persecution any day. Morever, the Dems may take gay voters for granted, but they don’t treat gay people like diseased pariahs as the GOP does.
That because Dubya and his crew have no plan–here’s Kerry’s.
Might I suggest you read the transcript of the debate once more? Because beyond the fact that the part of your post I highlighted is nothing more than a soundbyte taken out of context – and yes, Kerry is hampered somewhat by being long-winded in his speeches and replies to the press – in the actual debate Kerry made it quite clear that he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq “nowing what they know now.”
gobear, I think I find indifference worse, actually. Isn’t it easier to fight for your rights when those that are against you are barefaced than if they’re tacitly against you? (Boy, talk about an awkward sentence.)
I’ve said it before, but I think it bears repeating. Kerry has given me no reason to vote for him. (He ain’t Bush isn’t good enough.) If I were to vote for a third-party candidate, I’d only be doing so because I wouldn’t want to get my hands dirty voting for Bush. I don’t wish Kerry any ill will and I sincerely hope he’ll follow through with his plans if he’s elected.
This lack of an accessible, clearly-worded written plan for Iraq from the current administration is quite worrisome, though.
Thanks for the link, by the way, but I read Kerry’s plan the night of the debates.
I still sometimes say that I’m an "arch-conservative; that’s not really been accurate except for economics. I don’t know that I support Kerry’s economic plan from what I’ve seen) but I doubt that Bush has any better plan. I tend not to focus that much on the Presidential economic plans, because to a very, very large extent it depends on the whim of the Congress. The exact extent is open to debate. I sometimes use an analogy that I the budget in Congress is an oil tanker, and the President a tugboat bumping against it. You can knock it a bit and change the course somewhat, but overall (veto threat notwithstanding) it kind of goes in its own general direction. If the Tanker Captain is friendly (such as, being in the same party and in control of the Congress) she might give the wheel a spin the direction the tug wants to go, but no more than that.
Due to me viewing the overall potential effectiveness of either of the candidates in social issues, Kerry could have had my support if he supported a few of my pet key issues. Bush would be seriously handicapped to regain my trust because I already know somewhat of what to expect from him. Mind you, the Kerry followers on this Board certainly have done nothing to make him seem more desireable - quite the opposite, actually. But looking in detail and comparing the two choices, I can’t convince myself to vote for him. If Kerry had made an early and clear statement supporting gun rights, came out in strong favour of lesbian marriage, and presented a clear plan for the economy that focused sharply on reduction of services and freezing taxes to reduce, and eliminate, the deficit, I would have voted for him. Of course, Bush fails on all those tests too…
I don’t hold him (Kerry) to having a clear plan on the Iraq resolution at this point, as to a large extent it’s the mess that would be dumped on his lap, and really, that’s got to be hard for anyone. I would give him reign to work a while on it from an Executive position before coming up with a plan. After all, there are really hard things. Despite pundits throwing out their “clear and sane solutions”, fixing a fucked-up mess like Iraq is something I expect to take time, resources, and a lot of thought. So I’m not looking for sound bites or plans in stone from Kerry. Bush, on the other hand, is the architect of the current situation to some extent, although I don’t attribute negligence nor malice to him. I think he had a plan, listened to advice, made judgments, etc. that were incorrect. Possibly very badly incorrect. The result at least appears that way. But he’s had his time and his chance and something has to change with Iraq.
Of course, it may be a fairly impossible situation too for anyone at this point. How many smart and determined people have tried over how many years to stop the Palestinian nightmare? I said to my girl the last week “You know what I just realized? I’ve been watching Arabs kill Israelis and Israelis kill Arabs from my very first, earliest memories of TV from the Nixon years. And nothing seems to have really moved past that through the whole period of my life.” That’s really pretty sad.
I tend to agree that the result was a foregone conclusion, and that this Board inclines towards the liberal/left end of the political spectrum
But there’s another reason for the Republicans to avoid that poll, a reason that becomes clear in Brutus’ post when he says:
So, because the Board skews left, he’s not interested in participating in a simple poll that attempts to quantify that issue with respect to the upcoming election.
The only reason i can think of for this rather obtuse logic is that Brutus, like Airman Doors, actually loves to wallow in the notion in the notion of being a persecuted minority. That idea apparently feeds some sort of visceral need in some of the conservatives on this Board. They can then point to all of us mean, nasty liberals and leftists and whine about how hard life is for the poor, misunderstood right-wingers of the world. All in can surmise is that this martyr complex constitutes some sort of self-imposed penance for the fact that their conservative compatriots actually control just about every powerful institution in the United States.
That is not true. I don’t consider myself to be part of a persecuted minority. The OP asked why conservative participation was down, and I pointed out the obvious: this place is by no means anything even remotely resembling a representative sample of reality in the United States, and so participation in the poll would be pointless, except as a way to start another Bush-bashing thread titled “Hey guys! Look at all these morons voting for Bush!”, which is virtually a certainty anymore.
The SDMB is liberal. Am I putting myself on the cross, as rjung suggests? Absolutely not. I am stating an objective fact. What I find more interesting is that anytime someone mentions that they’re either a martyr or there is a massive effort to refute the assertion, using all kinds of contortions like “Compared to European liberalism”. Why are you guys ashamed of what you are? Why are you trying to deny the obvious? I really want to know.
The only thing I can think of is that if you can deny to yourself that this place is way out of step with the reality in the US you can convince yourself that this is the way America really thinks, and that somehow you find solace in the incredibly sheltered worldview you get here.
Guys, the fact is that despite the massive Bush-hating, despite the incredible polling results where Bednarik(!) gets more votes than Bush, Bush has the inside track on winning the election. I’m sorry to burst your bubble (and I myself am disappointed by that), but that’s the way it is.
Ah, I see they moved this thread to the Pit…no wonder I couldn’t find it. I thought it had just died.
Essentially I agree with most of what Airman is saying except one thing: Its BADNARIK not BEDNARIK. 
You are making the biased assumption that there is a ‘correct center’ for mankind, and that Europe is it. I can just as well make the assumption (and be just as incorrect) that the US is the ‘correct center’ and that Europe is hopelessly a left wing Liberal Fantasyland. The two systems are what they are…and there simply IS no relative center, so its meaningless to compare the two and say one is more left or more right…more left or right relative to WHAT exactly?? Who decides where the center is?
BTW, the US has (at least in recent history) been more ‘right wing’ using European standards…its not anything new. Under Clinton and Carter the US was considered ‘right wing’ by Europeans…using THEIR yard stick.
-XT
xtisme, you’re never going to appeal to the centrists with that kind of talk!
And it’s the last sentence of that paragraph that makes you sound like a whining martyr. The way some of you conservatives complain, you’d think that there was never any informed, reasonable, intelligent debate about politics on this Board. And you’d also be forgiven for thinking, if you listen to Brutus et al., that leftists and liberals are the only ones who ever engage in “pointless” political bashing exercises.
People of all political stripes engage in this sort of crap, but some Dopers, liberals included, are blind to the idiocy of some people on their own side of the political fence.
Bolding mine.
Ashamed of nothing. Hell, i call myself a leftist, not a liberal, and i’m proud of the designation.
But the “liberalism” of the SDMB is precisely a subjective issue, and not an objective fact. One can definitely make the case that these Boards are liberal in the context of US political culture. I’ll agree with that argument every time. But the fact is, whether you like it or not, that there are plenty of places in the world (including places that plenty of Dopers come from) where the political “liberalism” of this message board is decidely mainstream or centerist.
All this means, of course, if that those other countries tend, on average, to be more “liberal” than the United States. You seem to be saying that making comparisons to European, or Canadian, or Australian political cultures is somehow unfair, and that American political culture should be the standard by which all political positions are judged.
And here you perpetuate your apparent belief that US politics is the hallmark by which we should all be judged. Sure, this Board is more liberal than current mainstream US political culture; i’ve never denied that. But you betray your own prejudices and ignorance by saying that the more liberal leanings of this Board means that it is “out of step with the reality in the US.” Here’s a little nugget for you: disagreeing with or criticizing the people in power is not prima facie evidence that someone is “out of step with reality.”
Again you display your narrow political mindset. Why does the fact that Badnarik got more votes than Bush mean that the results are “incredible”? Sure, it means that the poll results are not representative of broad US political trends, but that’s all. Isn’t it possible that the comparatively large number of votes for Badnarik indicates that Dopers are more in tune with political reality, and not less? What is it that makes voting for Bush or Kerry more reasonable or “in touch with reality” than voting for Badnarik? I’m no particular fan of Badnarik myself, but your attitude to the votes he received indicates little more than a pathetic toadying to the two-party system—vote for Bush or Kerry, or you’re “out of touch with reality.”
Also, i don’t recall anyone in that thread denying that “Bush has the inside track on winning the election.” You continue to imply that anyone who criticizes Bush is also blind to the political realities of American politics. Simply not true. Despite the fact that i hate Bush with a passion, and i think his policies are extremely dangerous, i am completely aware that he has a very good chance to be re-elected. If i were to place a bet on the election result right now, i would reluctantly put my money on Bush. There’s no contradiction between disliking the man and, at the same time, recognizing the likelihood of his re-election.
Finally, despite your repeated assertion that a Bush re-election would be a dissappointment to you, i’m having a harder time believing that every time i read one of your posts. For someone who claims not to like Bush, and to hope he’s not re-elected, you spend an awful lot of your time acting as his booster. I guess maybe your wide-eyed credulity of his pre-Iraq war promises of WMDs has left you feeling a little conflicted. It must be hard when you find out that your conservative friend in the White House is a liar and a scumbag.
SentientMeat, I don’t know if you’ll still be reading this thread, but on the off-chance that you are (or have done a search), could you flesh out your point about the different use of the word ‘liberal’ in the US and the UK? How would you define/describe ‘liberal’ in its proper sense, and how would you define/describe it in its counter-intuitive sense?
From Here:
Bills sponsored and co-sponsored by Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
99th Congress:
Sponsored: 41
Co-Sponsored: 529
100th Congress:
Sponsored: 52
Co-Sponsored: 521
101st Congress:
Sponsored: 79
Co-Sponsored: 548
102nd Congress:
Sponsored: 59
Co-Sponsored: 394
103rd Congress:
Sponsored: 47
Co-Sponsored: 234
104th Congress:
Sponsored: 92
Co-Sponsored: 233
105th Congress:
Sponsored: 40
Co-Sponsored: 268
106th Congress:
Sponsored: 50
Co-Sponsored: 320
107th Congress:
Sponsored: 146
Co-Sponsored: 467
108th Congress:
Sponsored: 48
Co-Sponsored: 453
No, you’re just someone who’s too lazy to check his facts before shooting off his mouth
Bizz
That makes a grand total of 654 bills sponsored and 3967 co-sponsored. I believe the genesis of the “Kerry did nothing in the Senate” line of attack stems from the fact that Kerry doesn’t talk much about his record in the Senate. I presume that this is a conscious decision to avoid being painted as a Washington insider.
Personally, I’d like to hear Kerry talk more about his Senate record, about his short term as Lt Gov of MA (obvious why he doesn’t talk about that one), and about his time as a prosecutor (don’t know why he doensn’t talk much about this). But then I’m to the left of most undecided US voters, and like I said, I believe this is a conscious decision on the basis of a guess about the mindset of undecided voters.
Kerry certainly did sponsor some major stuff! Just look at this one:
That sounds super-duper important to me!
:rolleyes:
Dear God, what a convoluted abomination of a sentence. Sorry about that.
Yet another thread begins innocently enough, and ends up at the same place as have countless others.
The one and only thing I have against the liberal members of this board is that they cannot accept that the opinion of another differs from theirs without a descent into name calling and other verbal abuse which lend nothing of substance to the issue at hand.
Stating your points once isn’t enough. It has to be a multi-layered pile on in multiple threads and forums.
Anything said for the Republican party is a lie. Anything said against the Democratic party is a lie. Umm, OK. :rolleyes:
It strikes me as profoundly stupid to abuse my fellow doper for disagreeing with my point of view, when that is his/her Constitutional right.
That said, this is the Pit: fuck 
Don’t forget also that in a debate, there’s often only so many points to be made by people of each viewpoint, regardless of whether there are many more of one viewpoint than another.
Example, in GD I say “Black is black” and you say “black is white”, then 5 other posters chime in with arguments to support my viewpoint and say 3 post to support yours. That doesn’t mean necessarily that persons who support my position and persons who support yours are split 60/40. It could be that I have 50 other supporters to your 3, but the other 50 who agree with me don’t have much to add to what has been said already.
It does? See as I read it the quote is saying that what the amendment is going to be about has not been indicated yet. So I’m not sure how you know whether it was important or not.
But perhaps you have researched and found out that the amendment (when its purpose was finally revealed) was actually super-duper important.
Or maybe you’re a dumbass.