The Cellar - View Single Post

mrnoodle · 02-16-2004, 04:55 PM

A nicely written, coherent response

But I can't agree on several key points in your argument. First of all, attacking Bush's service record is one thing. Degrading service in the National Guard is another thing altogether. And that's exactly what the liberals are doing, whether intentionally or not. There are Guardsmen getting shot at right now in Iraq, yet the liberal side wants to paint Guard service as some kind of 'military lite' for people afraid to get their hands dirty. That's just plain untrue and insulting.

It's also dirty campaigning. Bush might or might not have missed a couple of monthly meetings, training sessions, etc. while helping someone run for a Senate office. People opt out of Guard meetings all the time for various personal reasons, and it's never met with this kind of scrutiny. If there's any wrongdoing there, it's an administrative foulup on the part of the Guard, not some conspiracy.

And as you said, Kerry's valor in combat, while admirable, doesn't equate to an ability to administrate the most powerful military force in the world. I think both sides are kind of missing the mark by even bringing up ANY of this. Kerry did what he was told, Bush did what he was told. Kerry was active duty, so that meant a different set of orders, hence a different outcome for the two.

Secondly, Reaganomics WAS GOOD ECONOMIC POLICY. I'm not going to back down on this. The economic prosperity during the Clinton years was a direct result of what was implemented during the 80s: global trade initiatives, deregulation of the industries that drive our country, restoring the strength of the dollar and the stock market. The tech sector experienced HUGE growth, allowing us to play in the same sandbox as Japan, who had dominated us for the previous decade. All of this created jobs. No, it didn't help raise the minimum wage, but it provided opportunity to grow out of minimum wage jobs.

Thirdly, the war on terror (I'm sick of the term as well) was dumped on Bush's head. Previous administrations, both Dem and Republican, are to blame for the fact that there even EXISTS an al-Quaeda. While we obsessed over Milosevic's penicillin factories, a far more dangerous threat was building under our noses. Now we have to deal with it, and as terrible as war is, it's the only language terrorists understand. You can't negotiate with someone who straps bombs to himself and runs into a shopping center screaming something about Allah. Bush's foreign policy is exactly what we need to remain safe. The UN would have us believe that diplomats wringing their hands and rending their garments is going to protect us from countries led by despots. They're sheep, plain and simple. And Kerry has said in the past (I can't find the quote, but I'm working on it) that he feels that American forces should be deployed internationally ONLY under the direction and approval of the United Nations. Oh-en-ell-wi.

No sane person believes in a one-world government. Some pretend to, only because they suffer under the delusion that the US would be in charge of it.

I'm out of steam. lol.

02-16-2004, 04:55 PM	#34
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	A nicely written, coherent response But I can't agree on several key points in your argument. First of all, attacking Bush's service record is one thing. Degrading service in the National Guard is another thing altogether. And that's exactly what the liberals are doing, whether intentionally or not. There are Guardsmen getting shot at right now in Iraq, yet the liberal side wants to paint Guard service as some kind of 'military lite' for people afraid to get their hands dirty. That's just plain untrue and insulting. It's also dirty campaigning. Bush might or might not have missed a couple of monthly meetings, training sessions, etc. while helping someone run for a Senate office. People opt out of Guard meetings all the time for various personal reasons, and it's never met with this kind of scrutiny. If there's any wrongdoing there, it's an administrative foulup on the part of the Guard, not some conspiracy. And as you said, Kerry's valor in combat, while admirable, doesn't equate to an ability to administrate the most powerful military force in the world. I think both sides are kind of missing the mark by even bringing up ANY of this. Kerry did what he was told, Bush did what he was told. Kerry was active duty, so that meant a different set of orders, hence a different outcome for the two. Secondly, Reaganomics WAS GOOD ECONOMIC POLICY. I'm not going to back down on this. The economic prosperity during the Clinton years was a direct result of what was implemented during the 80s: global trade initiatives, deregulation of the industries that drive our country, restoring the strength of the dollar and the stock market. The tech sector experienced HUGE growth, allowing us to play in the same sandbox as Japan, who had dominated us for the previous decade. All of this created jobs. No, it didn't help raise the minimum wage, but it provided opportunity to grow out of minimum wage jobs. Thirdly, the war on terror (I'm sick of the term as well) was dumped on Bush's head. Previous administrations, both Dem and Republican, are to blame for the fact that there even EXISTS an al-Quaeda. While we obsessed over Milosevic's penicillin factories, a far more dangerous threat was building under our noses. Now we have to deal with it, and as terrible as war is, it's the only language terrorists understand. You can't negotiate with someone who straps bombs to himself and runs into a shopping center screaming something about Allah. Bush's foreign policy is exactly what we need to remain safe. The UN would have us believe that diplomats wringing their hands and rending their garments is going to protect us from countries led by despots. They're sheep, plain and simple. And Kerry has said in the past (I can't find the quote, but I'm working on it) that he feels that American forces should be deployed internationally ONLY under the direction and approval of the United Nations. Oh-en-ell-wi. No sane person believes in a one-world government. Some pretend to, only because they suffer under the delusion that the US would be in charge of it. I'm out of steam. lol.