Washington Post endorses Kerry, and gently slaps the wrist of the Bush administration (old news for some, but worth reading for those who haven't already, though I disagree with some of their characterizations of Bush in a positive light. I find it difficult to reflect on anything positive about his presidency, as I believe that it has been a disaster from start to finish). Cul posted an article recently that highlighted the fact that at least 24 newspapers nationwide that endorsed Bush in 2000 are now endorsing Kerry. That brought a smile to my face.
Kerry for PresidentSunday, October 24, 2004
EXPERTS TELL US that most voters have had no difficulty making up their minds in this year's presidential election. Half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry -- or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have not been able to share in this passion, nor in the certainty. As readers of this page know, we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry's life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues -- but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation's trust to lead for the next four years.
The balancing process begins, as reelection campaigns must, with the incumbent. His record, particularly in foreign affairs, can't be judged with a simple aye or nay. President Bush rallied the nation after Sept. 11, 2001, and reshaped his own world view. His commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in the Arab world reflects an understanding of the deep threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. His actions have not always matched his stirring rhetoric on the subject, and setbacks to democracy in other parts of the world (notably Russia) appear not to have troubled him much.
But Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on accommodating friendly dictators. He has promised the large increases in foreign aid, to help poor nations cope with AIDS and for other purposes, that we believe are essential.
The campaign that Mr. Bush led to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan seems easy and obvious in retrospect, but at the time many people warned of imminent quagmire. Mr. Bush wasted valuable time with his initial determination to avoid nation-building after Kabul fell and his drawdown of U.S. forces. But even so, Afghanistan today is far from the failure that Mr. Kerry portrays. Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off thanks to the intervention.
In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We supported the war and believed that the Iraqi dictator posed a challenge that had to be faced; we continue to believe that the U.S. mission to promote a representative government in Iraq has a chance to leave the United States safer and the Iraqis far better off than they were under their murderous dictator.
We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, the United States' image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president's high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.
These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.
ON THE DOMESTIC side, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in the House have governed as heavy-handed partisans. We applaud Mr. Bush's campaign to promote accountability in elementary and secondary schools, and some of his other ideas may sound attractive as well: a degree of privatization to give people more control over their retirement funds, individual health accounts that might better match the mobile 21st-century world of work, market incentives to reduce pollution. But he has failed to do the hard work to turn such ideas from slogans into fair and balanced programs, and he has never said how he would pay for them, as in the case of Social Security private accounts.Posted by Maria at October 27, 2004 03:45 PM | TrackBackWhich brings us to his reckless fiscal policy. Mr. Bush inherited a budget in surplus but facing strains in the long run as retiring baby boomers intensify their claims on the nation's resources for pensions and health care. A recession that was gathering as he took office, and the economic blow delivered by the Sept. 11 attacks, would have turned surplus into deficit under the best of circumstances.
But Mr. Bush aggravated those circum- stances and drove the deficit to record levels with tax cuts that were inefficient in providing economic stimulus and that were tilted toward the wealthy. Despite the drains on the Treasury from the war in Iraq, he insisted that all the cuts be made permanent; no one, no matter how rich, was asked to sacrifice. Mr. Bush's rationales have shifted, but his prescription -- tax cuts -- has remained constant, no matter what the cost to future generations. The resulting fiscal deficit has dragged down the national savings rate, leaving the country dependent upon foreigners for capital in an unsustainable way. Mr. Bush says the answer lies in spending discipline, but he has shown none himself; see, for example, the disgusting farm subsidies he signed into law.
In 2000, Mr. Bush justifiably criticized his predecessor for failing to deal with the looming problems of Social Security and Medicare. In office, though, he has been equally delinquent, even as the day of reckoning drew closer. He championed a huge new entitlement for Medicare without insisting on the cost-cutting reforms that everyone knows are needed.
SO MR. BUSH HAS not earned a second term. But there is a second question: Has the challenger made his case? Here's why we say yes.
Mr. Kerry, like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement and health costs, but he promises more fiscal realism. He sensibly proposes to reverse Mr. Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest and pledges to scale back his own spending proposals if funds don't suffice. He would seek to restore budget discipline rules that helped get deficits under control in the 1990s.
On many other issues, Mr. Kerry has the better approach. He has a workable plan to provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million uninsured represent a shameful abdication that appears not to have concerned Mr. Bush one whit. Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate change and favored industry at the expense of clean air and water, Mr. Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful champion of environmental protection. Mr. Bush played politics with the Constitution, as Mr. Kerry would not, by endorsing an amendment to ban gay marriage. Mr. Kerry has pledged to follow the Geneva Conventions abroad and respect civil liberties at home. A Kerry judiciary -- and the next president is likely to make a significant mark on the Supreme Court -- would be more hospitable to civil rights, abortion rights and the right to privacy.
None of these issues would bring us to vote for Mr. Kerry if he were less likely than Mr. Bush to keep the nation safe. But we believe the challenger is well equipped to guide the country in a time of danger. Mr. Kerry brings a résumé that unarguably has prepared him for high office. He understood early on the dangers of non-state actors such as al Qaeda. To pave the way for restored relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, he took on the thankless and politically risky task of convincing relatives that no American prisoners remained in Southeast Asia. While he wrongly opposed the first Persian Gulf War, he supported the use of American force in Bosnia and Kosovo.
As with Mr. Bush, some of Mr. Kerry's strengths strike us as potential weaknesses. The senator is far more likely than Mr. Bush to seek a range of opinions before making a decision -- but is he decisive enough? He understands the importance of allies and of burnishing America's image -- but would he be too reluctant to give offense? His Senate record suggests an understanding of the importance of open markets, but during the campaign he has retreated to protectionist rhetoric that is troubling in its own right and as a possible indicator of inconstancy.
We have been dismayed most of all by Mr. Kerry's zigzags on Iraq, such as his swervings on whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat. As Mr. Bush charges, Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a "diversion" does not inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq, and we believe a Kerry administration would be better able to tackle the formidable nation-building tasks that remain there. Mr. Kerry echoes the Bush goals of an elected Iraqi government and a well-trained Iraqi force to defend it but argues that he could implement the strategy more effectively.
Mr. Kerry understands that the biggest threat to U.S. security comes from terrorists wielding nuclear or biological weapons. He pledges to add two divisions to the U.S. Army; try harder to secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world, and improve U.S. preparations for a bioterrorism attack. There is no way to know whether he would be more successful than Mr. Bush in slowing North Korea's and Iran's march toward becoming nuclear-armed states, but he attaches the right priority to both problems. He is correct that those challenges, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, call for the kind of sustained diplomacy that has been missing for four years. We hope he would be firmer than Mr. Bush in standing up to the genocide unfolding in Sudan.
We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
I think this endorsement highlights the difference between "us" and "them" - with us, it isn't an all or nothing deal. We can acknowledge and challenge our candidates downfalls. Where as they cannot. To them, Bush is perfect. It really boils down to the lesser of two evils in this election. And kerry is FAR less evil than Bush.
Posted by: nunya at October 27, 2004 03:54 PMI know several people who voted for Bush last election who will be voting for Kerry this time around. It makes my heart skip a beat with joy when I hear that. At least some people aren't too dense to allow reality to sink in and recognize when it's time to do a "flip flop."
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 04:33 PMReally?
I voted for Nader in 2000 and I'll be voting for Bush on Tuesday.
Flip-flop Maria.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 27, 2004 04:37 PMThat's not a flip-flop Mikey! That's schizophrenia.
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 04:52 PMI voted for Gore in 2000.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 27, 2004 06:03 PMThe total of Kerry endorsements by former Bush endorsing papers is now 36.
Posted by: cul at October 27, 2004 06:11 PMDon't forget the Tehran Times, the Syria Times, and Radio Pyongyang.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 27, 2004 06:37 PMyeah, because endorsing Kerry means endorsing terrorism, right Geoff? Why even bother having an election at all?
Posted by: nunya at October 27, 2004 06:51 PMHuh? Why do you think endorsing Kerry means endorsing terrorism? Is that why you endorse Hanoi John, felon? You endorse terrorists?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 27, 2004 07:09 PMoh i forgot, you never made it to the developmental stages that include recognizing sarcasm.
Posted by: nunya at October 27, 2004 07:17 PMSorry, sarcasm doesn't come through well in type. So what was the point of your post then?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 27, 2004 07:20 PMgee, for someone who claims to read alot, it makes me wonder what you really read if you "cant recognize sarcasm in type"
whats the point of my post? what is the point of your life?
Posted by: nunya at October 27, 2004 07:31 PMHere we go again.
You can't answer the question, or is it just that your post didn't have a point? It's ok to admit it, felon. That's the first step to recovery.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 27, 2004 07:50 PMStop right where you are. Nunya. Don't talk to Geoffrey. Geoffrey. Don't talk to Nunya. It's a new rule.
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 07:52 PMHA!
Good rule. Unless, of course, he continues to mention me in every comment. Can we add that amendment?
That's already in the books.
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 08:30 PM"Half the nation is passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately for John F. Kerry -- or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush."
And this is why you people will lose the election. You never nominated a decent candidate, rather you focused on "Anyone but Bush" and presented America a Turd from Massachusetts.
Christ, you idiots could have swept this election if you had any foresight.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 27, 2004 09:59 PMYou could stand to do a little more reading Gordon. You have a very narrow perspective. Part of the reason Bush is doing so well is because he has a huge religious base. You and Geoffrey criticized me so heavily for using the word "belief," but you seem to ignore the fact that George Bush's entire strategy as president has been to base things primarily on belief and without regard to facts. Many very conservative rightwing Christians (born again Christians and evangelicals make up roughly 42 percent of America's population) have been happy to place their "belief" and "faith" in a president who relies on those very two things (plus Jesus) far more often than he relies on facts and evidence. It's widely acknowledged that he does not even have the patience or desire to listen to people who offer evidence that may contradict his "beliefs" and "gut instincts." That will be the legacy of his one term presidency.
Kerry is an outstanding candidate and I look forward to having him as our new president (after "God" has left the building).
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 10:08 PMI criticize you for trying to rebut facts with beliefs, there's a big difference.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 27, 2004 10:20 PMYou've exhibited you're narrow perspective Maria. As most people know, I diverge with Bush on his religious beliefs. If anything, his religious beliefs have brought more harm, than good to his campaign. It's a point of contention for many of us conservatives. You're just too blind to see it in that straw you see the world through. But at least he's consistent on his beliefs, unlike Hanoi John who's waffles there too.
See, the liberal is powered by emotion, not rational thought or logic. Your emotion of hatred towards Bush was poorly focused energy. You dimwits should have focused on presenting America a good candidate. As in any enterprise, you need to focus your energy where you NEED it, not where you WANT it.
You didn't. All you have to offer America is a lying turd.
And you'll lose because of it. It's kinda like watching the Yankees blow the ALCS. You had this one in the bag, and you blew it.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 27, 2004 10:31 PM"I criticize you for trying to rebut facts with beliefs, there's a big difference. - Geoffrey"
No. There is not a difference. You just described exactly what George Bush is famous for doing.
"See, the liberal is powered by emotion, not rational thought or logic.- Gordon"
Once again, you described exactly the manner in which George Bush operates. He does not think rationally or logically, he acts based on his instincts and his faith in god.
I just fear for how it's going to break your little hearts when he loses this election to the far more presidential, leaps and bounds more intellectual, thoughtful and willing to take into account the opinions of the people of this country and of others in this world, rather than just one narrow perspective, JOHN KERRY.
On defense and diplomacy, on the environment, on economy, on healthcare, on education, and in all other aspects of the presidency, John Kerry outshines George Bush like a diamond sitting beside a lump of coal. And who wants that in their christmas stocking? I'm no fool. I'll take the diamond. Thanks.
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 11:09 PMAnd what might you do should Kerry lose?
Take it like a decent, logically-thinking person? Or will you contribute to the paranoia in perpetuating the 'stolen election' myth?
See Maria, if Bush looses we'll be cheesed off and possibly a touch bitter. We might even complain a little. But we'll get over it and start planning for 2008.
Will Democrats do the same should Kerry lose? I'm thinking that Geoffery was right - that most people left-of-center will react emotionally and I fear that the viseral reaction will be similar to the riots of Los Angeles back in 1992 after the King trial.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 27, 2004 11:15 PM"See, the liberal is powered by emotion, not rational thought or logic.- Gordon"
"Once again, you described exactly the manner in which George Bush operates. He does not think rationally or logically, he acts based on his instincts and his faith in god.-Maria"
Uhhh. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.
So you're telling me that Bush thinks like a liberal? By emotion, not rational thought or logic? HA HA HA! I love arguing with you!
"And what might you do should Kerry lose?"
The irrational moonbats are already discussing a civil war over at Cul's.
I guess being an American means nothing to these pouty bitches.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 27, 2004 11:20 PMShould have seen the 700 Club on ABC Family channel just now. They talked about what a great job Bush is doing of energizing the evangelical base. Hahahaa! You guys are voting for a radical fundamentalist! Might as well just move to Iran, you know, that little country that endorsed Bush's presidency recently. Sounds like you Bush voters would like that kind of society. One where the government tells you what you can and cannot do and where dissent is considered a crime.
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 11:25 PMGordon, you are so dense it hurts to see you even try.
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 11:26 PM"See Maria, if Bush looses we'll be cheesed off and possibly a touch bitter. We might even complain a little. But we'll get over it and start planning for 2008. - Mad Mikey"
I've said what I would do. I would cry like a little baby for a bit, and then I would carry on with my usual business. Do you think dems will just fall apart? You are dense too! The more I listen to you guys, the more I think how you prove that little study I posted yesterday correct. At least 75 percent of Bush voters are uninformed and steeped in denial.
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 11:29 PMNo. There is not a difference. You just described exactly what George Bush is famous for doing.
What facts was Bush trying to refute with his beliefs?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 27, 2004 11:34 PMBush voters are uninformed? What about you? Geoff has made a fool of you over the last three days.
He's presented facts while you present beliefs.
You're uninformed.
But at least we found central gound on one issue this evening - that liberals are powered by emotion, not rational thought or logic.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 27, 2004 11:49 PM"He's presented facts while you present beliefs."
He's presented nothing of the sort. Just your usual brand of gar-bage.
"What facts was Bush trying to refute with his beliefs?"
All facts. Bush hates facts. Facts are the bain of his very existence. He can't be bothered with them. He decides how he wants to proceed in our affairs based on what his "instincts" and his "faith" tell him to do. If a person presents him with facts that contradict the path that he has already chosen to take, he dismisses those people and has a reputation for getting impatient, as we saw when he was debating John Kerry and when he's appeared in very scarce press conferences. He doesn't like being confronted with reality. He doesn't like when people disagree with him. He doesn't like to be asked pointed questions. He keeps a very tightknit circle of people around him, more so than just about any president in history, and runs a very secretive presidency. If you can't admit even that, then you guys are way out in another universe with denial.
Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2004 11:56 PMNight now. Don't forget to say your prayers to the almighty George Bush!
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 12:00 AMFacts? You want to talk facts not opinions? Care to discuss Hanoi Johns voting record? There's some facts you can't escape with your beliefs.
It's hard to take someone serious while they cite Howard Stern. Thanks for all the laughs though.
As for the prayer before I go to bed, who are we kidding? You're the religious freak, not me. You claim to be raised a Hindu Catholic raised in a Tibet Cult or whatever the hell it is. No wonder you have issues.
Why don't you go say a thousand hail marys then meditate about it.
Posted by: Gordon at October 28, 2004 12:13 AMWhat will YOU do if Bushies rig ANOTHER election?
Let's not have a CIVIL WAR, now!
Posted by: cosa nostradamus at October 28, 2004 12:46 AMBear in mind that most gun owners are conservatives....
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 28, 2004 01:12 AMHa Ha! Cosa NoSUBSTANCE just made a shameless attempt to direct traffic to his fishwrapper of a blog.
If I didn't know better, I'd guess it's Nunya under a new name and he finally started a blog rather then tell Maria how to run hers.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 02:04 AMHa Ha! Cosa NoSUBSTANCE just made a shameless attempt to direct traffic to his fishwrapper of a blog.
If I didn't know better, I'd guess it's Nunya under a new name and he finally started a blog rather then tell Maria how to run hers.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 02:04 AMtroll
Posted by: cosa nostradamus at October 28, 2004 04:26 AMits a myth that most gun owners are conservative.
Posted by: cul at October 28, 2004 06:55 AMAll facts. Bush hates facts.
Well, if Bush tries to refute all facts with his beliefs, you shouldn't have much trouble throwing up just a few examples.
Got any?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 28, 2004 07:00 AMReally cul?
I think you're lying through your teeth....unless you can prove it.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 28, 2004 08:32 AMcan you prove that most gun owners ARE conservatives, mikey?
i love how you people ask for proof from others, but yet are so unwilling or unable to prove your own statements.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 09:06 AM"You claim to be raised a Hindu Catholic raised in a Tibet Cult or whatever the hell it is. No wonder you have issues."
It's the most amazing thing Gordon, you can't remember something that was said a week ago (that my mother was raised Mormon, father raised Catholic and they both converted to Tibetan Buddhism 30 years ago). Not only does it appear that you have disdain for Eastern religion (which isn't surprising since it's no secret that you're an ignorant redneck), but it's becoming clear why you can't seem to remember anything about George Bush's life and history, nor his most recent actions and statements! You have Alzheimers! Maybe you should think about supporting the candidate who stands behind stem cell research. Or you could just try praying to the Almighty Bush, your Lord and Savior to kill you before the dementia fully sets in and you can't even remember the web addresses of your favorite trolling locations. What a shame that would be.
"Well, if Bush tries to refute all facts with his beliefs, you shouldn't have much trouble throwing up just a few examples."
Geoffrey, it's sad to me when you reveal how little you know about your own candidate. You really should spend more time educating yourself. President Bush is driven by faith. He has called his war on terror a "Crusade" on more than one occasion and during many a speach refers to the vague concepts of "strength and resolve" as the keys to overcoming terrorism. He can't admit to a single mistake that he's made as president because he believes that all God's work has a good purpose in the end. (We would never accuse God of making a mistake, and we should place the same faith in him) Unfortunately, "Facts and evidence" never seem to play well in the mix.
Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. "'Mr. President,'" I finally said, "'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'"Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts."
…
The Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush's top deputies -- from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals fighting in Iraq -- have been told for years when they requested explanations for many of the president's decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with accepted facts. The president would say that he relied on his "gut" or his "instinct" to guide the ship of state, and then he "prayed over it." - Ron Suskind, NYT October 17, 2004
Get to know your candidate Geoffrey.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 10:15 AMAll of the fallen conquerors felt the same way. Everything was by their instincs. Napoleon had an instinct about Waterloo. Hitler had an instinct about the Russian front. They felt they were so righteous and sure of their feelings, than nothing could stop them. How wrong they were.
What is scary about Bush, he not only doesn't listen to his own advisors, but if they advise him on the contrary to his own beleifs, he gets rid of them.
even bush's own party not only sees his presidency as faith-based, they also oppose it.
check this article out
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 10:34 AMhere is an excerpt that really bugs me about how little Bush knows of other countries military:
In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored "road map" for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman - the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress - mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden," Bush said. "They're the neutral one. They don't have an army."
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: "Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army." Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. "No, no, it's Sweden that has no army."
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
Who supports the 2nd Amendment more - conservatives or liberals?
Which party are people from the NRA more likely to be part of - GOP or the DNC.
I'll dig up something later since you're so whiny about it; I was taking a page from Maria's book on making the other person research the topic.
Can you prove that there aren't more conservatives that are gun owners NEOdork?
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 28, 2004 11:59 AMI don't think all DEM's consider themselves necessarily to be a Liberal..I mean it can be a different definition and by that..both my husband and I come from families predominantly DEM and Union men, hunters, gun owners and NRA members..I just think it's dangerous to try and draw the line in the sand like that.
Posted by: sandy at October 28, 2004 12:25 PMMy dad is one of the most liberal people I know. He has several guns and when I visit, we like to go and shoot them at the gun range where he's a member.
However, he supports gun control. People should not be allowed to walk into a gun show and buy guns without a background check. People should not be permitted to own automatic assault weapons. If you lived in a city like NY, you might understand the need for gun control a little better. Even our republican mayor, who supports Bush, Michael Bloomberg, supports stricter gun control.
Sandy's right. It's not reasonable to make blanket statements about who is more likely to own guns. The bottom line is that as long as gun control laws remain so relaxed, more criminals are likely to own guns. That's a problem. Truth is, citizens wouldn't so badly need the personal protection that guns provide, if it wasn't so easy for criminals to legally obtain guns too!
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 12:32 PMalso, mikey, those aren't facts. This is assumptions or even more so - stereotypes. Yup, stereotypes - that is a subject you know very well, dontcha?
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 12:46 PMLike I said. YOU have issues with religion Maria. It's no wonder you're so confused. So are you a Mormon? A Catholic? Or a Buddhist?
As for educating ourselves, look in the mirror. Perhaps if you were "educated" you wouldn't be fetching coffee and spellchecking for $9 an hour.
See, his whole argument falls apart (can you say Gordork's house of cards) so he attacks what Maria does for a living.
So how does one please you Gordork? You piss and whine about people being on welfare but yet you make fun of someone for making an honest living. Is that a flip flop I see?
nah, must be just a big fat dick.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 01:24 PMIf you're too stupid to figure out that if my parents converted to Buddhism 30 years ago, and I am 26 years old, I am obviously a Buddhist, don't get aggravated with me about it.
Gordon, you would choke on your own joy if you could make even half of what I earn being a legal secretary in NY. I imagine sitting around on your fat redneck tuckus in buttfuck, wherever the hell you live doesn't pay so good.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 01:25 PMhe lives either in the florida panhandle along the gulf coast or Alabama along the coast. It doesn't get much more good old white boy redneck deep south than that.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 01:29 PMThis is an old article but it does show that you don't have to be a Liberal to want gun control.
"
NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.
Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison. "
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm
Posted by: sandy at October 28, 2004 01:40 PMknow what else? he is so quick to make fun of what everyone else does, yet he won't say what HE does for a living.
why is that, gordork?
Oh that's right! Alabama! (What a shithole) According to this site, people in Alabama who do the same job I do get paid approximately half as much, even when they're getting top dollar. Imagine that.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 01:40 PMAwesome Sandy.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 01:42 PMwhen I was in the air force, I was stationed for training for 6 months at Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS. We would shoot over I-10 east on crotch rockets to pensecola. All along the coasts of MS, Bama, Florida were some of the rudest most racist son of a bitches I ever met. They still had signs on lawns and in some of these one shop towns that would read "no dogs, jews, niggers, yankees allowed" or "Keep dogs and coons off grass"
Granted, there are some very nice areas along the coast, but you better be in the "club"
Anyone need a crying towel? I seemed to have really struck a nerve.
Nunya- talk to the hand. You're speaking gibberish as usual. It's a shame this country didn't have GW's "No child left behind" policy when you went to school. I'll tell you what, if you decide to speak the same language I'll consider stooping to reply to you.
Typcial liberal whining Maria. You attack my intelligence and my edcuation and I sparred back.
Now you whine. Wahhhhhhhh.
If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Consider that lesson in life free, since it's all you can afford.
As for the quip about what you make. Tell someone who cares. Feeling a bit insecure?
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 02:47 PMThe only one that's whining is you Gordon, because you've been schooled and you had to resort to irrelevant personal attacks about my occupation and religious beliefs when you couldn't support any of your arguments.
Insecure? I like how you always betray your own sentiments when attacking others. It makes it easy to cut you down.
You haven't been able to dispute a single thing. You are a sad little sheep who can't stop eating the bullshit that you are fed. You and Bush would get along great. Neither of you are capable of accepting reality.
Who's been bitchslapped now? I'd be feeling pretty stupid if I were you my little redneck friend.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 02:52 PMnunya..honey I'm from Georgia and was raised there my whole life. The South has changed quite a bit..now since I have an Air Force background I will admit I am very familiar with the area you speak of and I just heard a buddy of mine talking about it recently..it's still pretty bad down there. But..not everybody down South thinks that way. Trust me..they don't.
Posted by: sandy at October 28, 2004 02:56 PMMaria..did you get my email?
Posted by: sandy at October 28, 2004 02:59 PMOh Maria,
You attack me then have a meltdown when I attack back?
Typical. Liberal.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 02:59 PMYou are a truly dillusional schlub. Your arguments are crap. Or they would be if you could even construct one out of your childish denials.
I'm just stating the facts. You are crying like the little bitch that you are.
Typical. Gordon.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 03:05 PMsandy - i live in nc. i too see how it has changed but these are spotty concentrated areas. there are still more chauvanstic pig headed racists per sq. mile over yonder then there aren't. but progress is made in baby steps.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 03:07 PMI won. You lost.
You know how I can tell when I beat you? When you thow a meltdown like you just did.
You threw several spars and I threw back.
I struck a nerve and you had a meltdown.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 03:08 PMI thought you were above stereotypes Nunya?
I guess you lied. Again. Like that time you claimed you'd beat my ass and didn't deliver.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 03:09 PMGordon is getting really desperate now. Everybody stand back. He's gonna blow.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 03:10 PMnunya..this is way off topic..but one of my most favorite places in the world is Cherokee, N.C. Are you close to that? My parents have a cabin there and oh we spent some great times there.
Anyway...Georgia is making progress if you look at it's local leaders, but yes baby steps I'll give you that..
Posted by: sandy at October 28, 2004 03:12 PMOh and Gordie, you don't know from sparring. You are the worst failure I've ever seen when it comes to sparring. You always resort to the same old tired lines. Boring. Lackluster. Same ole' same ole'. You couldn't give a grilled cheese sandwich a meltdown.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 03:12 PMnope, cherokee is out west. I am in the triad region. but, i know the area a little out there. as far as i am concerned, anywhere out in the moutains is truly God's country. Trout fishing out there is heaven.
gordork - you just got took!
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 03:18 PMi think gordork has a list of pre-determined insults:
crying towell
rest stop troll
struck a nerve
get fetch coffee
boy toucher
man diapers
moonbat
it goes on and is a cyclic list.
Maria,
You said Bush refutes Facts with Beliefs, you aren't going to provide an example?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 28, 2004 03:22 PMI hope everyone here is having as much fun as I am.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 03:26 PMokay nunya.sorry I had to go pee...I do want to give you an example of when you have to really go past a Headline down south..I may come across as a Southern daughter protecting her own but....I'll try to be brief. I do really hate the racist remarks concerning my home area..I know it's alive there more than anywhere else but..let me flip the coin for a moment. My cousin Jimmy is the Fire Chief in my town and I gotta brag, the youngest one ever to be appointed in the history of GA. Anyway, a few years ago they had a real problem. Some black firefighters said they felt the whites were being promoted faster. It was all over the news, it was BAD publicity. So they took 5 white men, 5 black men to be spokesman for each side. The whites came up with this solution...promotion would be pretty much like the military..firefighters would TEST, their names, nor race would be on the form, only a number. Sounds fair but yet the black firemen still said NO GO and were threatening to strike. Now I will admit most of the white firemen had served in the military, they came to the county already EMT certified and overly qualified. The black firemen were essentially asking these mens' records to be dismissed and ignored. Is that fair? No...a meeting of the minds did come and my cousin has said after this year he is stepping DOWN as Chief..it's too politically for his taste. I'm just saying that the South has changed in alot of good ways but don't think that all white men RULE down there anymore..the playing field is pretty level in some places.
Posted by: sandy at October 28, 2004 03:27 PMMaria..I'm having fun..but it's 10pm here..I gotta go night night :(
Posted by: sandy at October 28, 2004 03:29 PMAw Sandy! Well sleep tight and don't worry. You know we'll be right back here another time. Haha. ;o)
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 03:32 PMlike the areas, there are pockets of goodness.
the reality is, the harsh reality is, we are still a very WASPy culture. Many of us whites are closet racists to one degree or another. And the good ol' boy network is bigger and stronger than ever. Affirmative action levels that field a little bit. You don't go from being a nation where minorities were treated harshly and unfairly since that nations inceptions to being equal for all - overnight. Remember, it has only been 35 or so years since the civil rights movement started. You cannot tell me we have become a colorblind nation in those years.
Do I think that testing was a good idea? sure. but try to look at it from their point of view - why should they completly trust us?
Are you going to give us that example, Maria, or are you having trouble finding one?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 28, 2004 03:39 PMthis side discussion jolted my memory about a very hushed story that I read years ago. It basically shows that it is the design of the system that is at fault and not the lack of education of the minorities.
A sort of IQ test was given to a group of whites and blacks. Of course, the results were the whites scored higher. But then, the same test, just worded in such a way the blacks understood better, was given to both groups and guess what, not only did the blacks score higher on this test, but in comparison to the first test, the scored on average, higher than the whites. Thsi doesn't prove one group is better than the other, but proves language and how and who a system is designed for, is the key.
I'd love to see one of us try and thrive in an unfamiliar place with different rules.
OMG! Maria just got personal.
Wahhhhhhh. Wahhhhhhh. Nunya - save me from Maria!
You're the one serving coffee and spellchecking Maria. Now who's the failure again?
This is too easy.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 03:52 PMwhy is maria a failure for being an admin. assistant?
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 04:03 PMMy bank account just called. It wanted me to tell you I'm a happy success and you're a fat broke redneck L7 from Alabama.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 04:05 PMwhen i was at a major networking company, the admin. assitants made upwards of 60K a yr. Some were making near 80K.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 04:06 PMalso, tell you what - any job that affords you the time to sit on here and write comments and still get paid, is pretty damn good.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 04:08 PMwonder why gordork won't tell us what he does.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 04:24 PMObviously, he's ashamed. He's the assistant to a legal secretary. That's why he hates me so much. Because mean legal secretaries like me make him fetch the coffee. And we laugh at how funny he looks in the little *uniform* that he wears. It's so tight around the tuckus that he's constipated, and that makes him even angrier. Then he lashes out, but he's not smart enough to form a real assault so he just spins out the same old boring insults. And the legal secretaries laugh some more and ask for more coffee. It's just terrible. He hides his misery by trolling the internet and acting out his frustrations, trying to dominate others, but he can't escape his sad existence of being a groveling little minion to evil legal secretaries such as myself.
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 04:35 PMYup, stereotypes - that is a subject you know very well, dontcha?
Oh you mean like 'republicans are racist'?
BTW, you'll need to find another proxy as that particular IP is now persona non grata.
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 28, 2004 05:09 PMI didn't post that from a procy you jackass. If I wanted to post from proxies, I could do it all day long and you couldn't stop me. But your shithole of a blog is so boring and so one sided, why even bother.
And I never said all repubs are racist. I said MANY repubs are racist. I think it is a very safe asumption that the neo-nazis, kkk members and other similar factions of such, are repubs or at least vote only repub. Byrd doesn't count. Why? Let's pick one recent senator that cancels that out - Thrumond. Or we could go with Lott. Or Helms. Or Duke. Pick one. If that isn't enough, we could always run down the long and indistinguished lists of white racist repukes on the house side of the congress.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 05:21 PMhttp://www.wral.com/news/3869570/detail.html
i wonder when something will be bad enough to start looking into impeachment. oh wait, fraud, lying about going to war, stealing, etc. isn't a threat to national security, only lying about blow jobs is.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 05:36 PMThen it would be okay if your wife blew someone and lied about it?
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 28, 2004 05:59 PMno, it would probably end our marriage, but it is not a matter of national security.
the whole thing was a waste of time, money, energy and set a very bad precedence for the whole impeachment process.
again, jerkoff, not everything is black and white.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 06:01 PMSo it might depend on who she blew, right?
Posted by: Mad Mikey at October 28, 2004 06:08 PMnope. asd far as a marriage is concerned, it is a promise...but it is between US. Should she lose her job over it? Of course not. It was not something that directly affected her job. Nor was clinton getting blown in the white house. WHen infidelity becomes grounds for losing your job, than we blur the secular/non-secular line.
if that were the case though, there would be a fuck load of ceo's, high up government officials, professors, doctors and the such who would be out of a job.
AGAIN, not everything is black and white.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 06:42 PMI wonder why Maria can't back up her claims. As usual.
This is getting to be a habit with her.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 28, 2004 07:10 PM"My bank account just called. It wanted me to tell you I'm a happy success and you're a fat broke redneck L7 from Alabama."
Hey, I have an Uncle that's happy to collect trash. I mean he's a "sanitation expert". Like I said earlier, whatever floats your boat. You do seem a bit insecure about this topic though.
Now was that Daddy's bank accouny or yours calling? I find it hard to believe you're rolling in it fetching coffee.
"when i was at a major networking company, the admin. assitants made upwards of 60K a yr. Some were making near 80K."
Wow! People get paid 60k a year to spell check and file? Chump change. My Uncle the "Sanitation Expert" makes more in Nassua, NH of all places.
"He's the assistant to a legal secretary."
Yeah! Sorry, I'm what they call overqualified for menial work such as admin asst. That's what happens when you actually finish college and earn a masters. People pay you for what your worth.
I like how Nunya fingers Alabama for it's racial issues when he lives in North Carolina?
Now that's funny.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 07:32 PMIt's obvious that politics isn't the only thing you're misinformed about. You don't know what the job description is of a legal secretary. Our catering department takes care of coffee. I don't use spellcheck. Ever.
What's really scary is that it doesn't even matter. Even if I were serving coffee and the extent of my clerical duties was spellchecking for $9 per hour, that would be nothing to shake a stick at.
What this whole dialogue reveals is what a disgusting human being you are, that you would demean the hard work of any individual, regardless of what they do, and that you really have no other meritorious thoughts or points to make. You can't dispute the truth. You can't have an even remotely enlightened disagreement on any subject. You're just floundering around in your own idiocy and self contempt, (which you dress up as contempt for others to try and hide your boundless insecurities).
You play yourself Gordon. And it's quite a show. But you really have nothing of value to contribute other than the entertainment value of observing a person so unaware of how stupid they look. I suspect you've never had anything to contribute your entire life. I pity you. And I pity your spouse for being stuck with a redneck schlub.
Geoffrey, I've proven all my claims, now try proving yours. Or are you just going to run and hide again?
Posted by: Maria at October 28, 2004 07:33 PMWow! I really struck a nerve that time. You lashed out at my wife even! You stooped to Nunya's level.
You are insecure aren't you?
You started this personal interchange and you lack the stomach to follow it through Maria. Wahhhhhhhhh.
The only person I pity is your boyfriend who has to tolerate your irrational mood swings and your mealy bitch mouth.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 07:39 PMProven your claims?
I asked for one single example of Bush refuting fact with his beliefs.
You've yet to provide one. You've dodged. You've danced. You've changed the topic. You haven't produced any examples, though.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 28, 2004 07:41 PMShe sure can dish it out, but she can't take it.
I knew she'd have another meltdown.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 07:43 PMyet you continue to avoid telling us what YOU do.
Posted by: nunya at October 28, 2004 09:27 PMFelon, you said you had absolute proof that Gordon and I are the same person. You also said you spoke to someone that knows me personally. Shouldn't you know what I do?
Ahhhh, that's right. You were lying, huh felon?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 28, 2004 09:39 PMyou're right, what does your alter ego do?
You talked to someone that knows us, you should know. Who was it you spoke to again?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 28, 2004 10:26 PMI'm an assistant to administrative assistants. Didn't you read what Maria wrote?
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at October 28, 2004 11:11 PMthat is what I thought, gordork, you are too much of a pussy to tell us what you do.
Posted by: nunya at October 29, 2004 08:45 AMhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/28/iraq.explosives/index.html
how bout that video, gayf/gordork?
Posted by: nunya at October 29, 2004 08:56 AMSpeaking of pussies, who was it you spoke to? Oh yeah, you're too much of a pussy to tell us. *Edited*
What about This One, felon?
The facts, little convict, the facts.
You've got none.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 29, 2004 09:20 AMthat was yesterday, dickface! this video I postd was just released!
and you know damn well who it was who saw you, at the bar, you skinny little runt. And how about the girl who laughed in your face....go ahead and deny it.
Posted by: nunya at October 29, 2004 09:34 AMand maria - if you could, please provide me with the IP so I can look up Geoff's ISP. I would like to speak with them about his false accusations he is making about me.
Posted by: nunya at October 29, 2004 09:37 AMHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What was the person's name you spoke to, felon?
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 29, 2004 09:38 AMdoesn't matter now, dickface. you just better hope your isp doesn't take more action against you. you also better hope I don't either.
Posted by: nunya at October 29, 2004 09:44 AMdoesn't matter now, dickface. you just better hope your isp doesn't take more action against you. you also better hope I don't either.
Doesn't matter now, didn't matter then. Just another example of your lies, felon. It doesn't matter, because it didn't happen.
As for the threats, first, my ISP could care less that *EDITED*. Second, even if they did, you could never find my isp. Third, you wouldn't take action yourself this time any more than you did LAST time.
You're all powder, no shot, FELON.
Posted by: Geoffrey at October 29, 2004 09:51 AM