Democratic Convention

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Or the question of voting for something that already happened over a decade ago is a red herring from the main issue of defining Kerry's current positions to the extent any politician actually hard and fast defines positions prior to an election.

WTH else do you have to look at except the guy's record? Or, do you really want to bury the chicken**** references to Bush?

Can you have it both ways? You seem to want to.

[Agathon]

Why does this matter? Bush is so politically radioactive in every other country bar Israel that running an anti-American campaign is a definite vote winner. Bush could kowtow all he wants to his former alllies and it wouldn't make a difference - once trust has gone, it is next to impossible to restore: in ordinary life as much as in international politics.

To other nations it only matters that Kerry would restore traditional US diplomacy (as in diplomacy since 1945). The US has done all sorts of self serving crap over the last 50 years, but the various administrations have had the nous to use diplomacy to convince other nations to do things. Sometimes this meant that the US didn't get it exactly as they wanted, but in the long run it is the optimal strategy.

Then dip**** gets elected and announces that diplomacy is effectively finished: he'll do what he wants and damn anyone else. Is it any surprise that other countries don't feel like helping or encouraging someone who acts like this?

It's not as though these countries don't want good relations with the US: they do, and it is extremely important to them. But they don't see their interests being served at all by supporting an administration that allows them no leverage at all, and why should they?

If Kerry is elected and things return to normal, other countries will whine and ***** about things the US does, but it won't reach anything like the current level, if Kerry shows himself to be a shrewd diplomat. People can stand losing when everyone plays by the commonly accepted rules a lot better than they can when there are no rules at all.

Why do you think all sorts of former diplomats are coming out against Bush? They know he is harming US interests with his fundamentalism. A friend of mine is an ex-diplomat. According to him, most of them think that Bush is a lunatic who is wrecking the hard work that they and others like them have put into establishing a however fragile, set of expectations about the way things are supposed to work.

[Agathon]

You know, in twenty-five years Americans are going to look back on Bush like they now look back on McCarthy: as a demagogic liar who took advantage of people's fears and disgraced the nation.

[MrFun]

Don't hold back on your opinions about Bush Agathon . . . .



TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL!

[Agathon]

I hate gay raccoons.

[Jaguar]

Gay raccoons

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon
I hate gay raccoons.

[Ted Striker]

****ing gay raccoons

[Jaguar]

WORD

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


WTH else do you have to look at except the guy's record? Or, do you really want to bury the chicken**** references to Bush?

Can you have it both ways? You seem to want to.

If record is what matters, why would ANYONE vote for Bush given his admins. utter incompetence in running the Iraq war?

That boggles my mind.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont suppose that Kerry wants to play what if, cause it raises questions about his "Strength" theme. All the allies whose judgement and respect Kerry now thinks are so important thought that Saddam had to be removed from Kuwait, and at the time Kerry did not. And btw, all the "realists" Kerry now identifies with did so as well. Now IF i had a clear statement of Kerrys FP vision, WHICH I DO NOT, I might overlook that. But if Kerry is going to avoid putting forth such a vision, then im going to have to look at his past behavior.

What on earth do you find attractive or even remotely effective about Bush's FP? That is what I don;t understand.

[Ted Striker]

Bah I just heard Kerry's wife's speech.

Complete turnoff with the anti-men crap.

[MrFun]

It was not anti-men.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by MrFun
It was not anti-men.

But I'm pretty sure it was anti gay raccoon.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MrFun
It was not anti-men.

Yeah it was.

She used the tired old line, "I should be able to voice my opinion and not be considered a b1tch the same way men can."

That implies that men like guys who are *******s. If you're an *******, you're an *******, just because you are a guy you don't get any special privileges. It implies that men are out oppressing women because of their opinions. Which isn't the case.