Kerry Us Through Part I

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The AAA Frame Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Chris Moore on October 29, 2004 at 12:33:44:

Well with the election for the next person who will serve as our President practically upon us, I have decided to opine(surprise!) A two part posting actually.

I wonder what the Bush supporters fear will happen should John Kerry become president?

That Kerry will ignor homeland security and al qaeda terrorists will overrun America? Oh yeah, this is real likely.

That he will bust the budget as a "tax and spend liberal"? Sorry as my pal Doug W seems willing to conceed GW has already busted the budget; with borrow and spend policies! (the money borrowed though some say raided from the social security surplus and also from Asians especially the old "Red Chinese" of all people).

That as a "liberal" Kerry will take all this money from hard working Americans and give it to lazy welfare queens and others bums who wont work? The policies designed to aid and improve the lot of the poor (regardless of how one feels about such programs)through big initiatives are in retreat(can you say "Welfare reform"?), and certainly unlikely to be expanded anytime soon that I can see.

That those making over $200,000 will suffer so much when their marginal income tax rates are brought back to what they were when GW took office? Well boo who who.

There is one area I must admit if Kerry there will be a significant impact on Bushies. Kerry is clearly disinclined to nominate federal judges and/or work to amend the constitution to bring (their idea) of Christian theology into law regarding reproductive rights for women as GW is pledged to do (see Republican Platform 2004 for details). However as Ron Orsi by his own admission tediously explained vis-a-vis the senate judicial affirmation process and the constitutional amendment procedures this isnt happening anyway even if GW wins so what's it matter if Kerry wins?

Re: Kerry Us Through Part I

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The AAA Frame Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Doug W on October 29, 2004 at 19:46:24:

In Reply to: Kerry Us Through Part I posted by Chris Moore on October 29, 2004 at 12:33:44:

What Bush supporters fear:
Of course we don’t think al Qaeda terrorists will overrun America. What does that mean…”overrun?” You are setting up a straw man here by painting a picture of paranoid wackos who picture armies of terrorists running around America freely. It is actually a quite reasonable concern of a return to the days when FBI agents’ alarms were ignored, Moussoui’s computer could not be searched, domestic law enforcement could not communicate with the intelligence services and the Islamo-fascists who declared war on America were considered to be a law-enforcement issue. Kerry plainly wishes to return to that complacency. Unlike the prospect of al Qaeda terrorists overrunning America, under a Kerry presidency, a return to that complacency is very likely.

A Kerry administration could not do worse with spending than the current bunch. (An aside: there has never been a Social Security surplus. It has been quite thoroughly looted).

Kerry cannot take any money from hard-working Americans and give it to anyone. Spending is determined in congress. He can propose and persuade, just as Bush did. That’s it. So, it is not a concern of mine if Kerry is elected. Obviously, I am rooting for continued and expanded Republican representation in congress.

Your sarcastic, “boo who who” is disturbing. Small businesses are the hiring and economic engine of our economy. How you can be so callous at their looting at the hands of greedy politicians is beyond me. Anyway, a president Kerry could only propose. It doesn’t worry me.

GW says he will appoint judges based on their adherence to The Constitution. It is the Democrats who have a litmus test on this issue (abortion). Of course, adherence to the Constitution is a backdoor litmus test on abortion since THE WORD IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND IS THUS LEFT UP TO THE STATES!

You are right in positing that judicial appointments will be a significant impact on those who fear a Kerry presidency. Outside of the war on Islamo-Fascism, there is no more important issue. Today we see outrage after outrage perpetrated by Clinton’s judicial appointments. They have become a super-legislature that is literally changing the social landscape of this country outside of the peoples’ legislatures. This cannot be allowed to continue. If the legislatures do not have the cojones to rein in these robed tyrants, at least we need appointees who will refrain from legislating from the bench. Bush’s appointees auger well for this trend. Liberals’ appointees definitely do not!

My main fear of a Kerry presidency is this: I do not believe that he believes in American national sovereignty. I believe that he is a utopian Leftist who will turn our national sovereignty over to international entities like the UN through a Gulliver’s web of treaties and executive orders. He does not respect the notion of national sovereignty. He does not acknowledge the fact of American exceptionalism. He is mired in a false philosophy of world peace. There will never be world peace until all nations come to a respect for the rule of law over the rule of men and an acknowledgement of individual liberty. Until that time, surrendering to the illusion that there can be world peace will not only set that goal back, but will result in the exact same horrific slaughter and ruined lives that we saw in the appeasement and tolerance of evil in the last century.

Kerry is EXACTLY the same type of appeaser and tolerator that allowed the horrors of the 20th century to unfold. If you doubt it, just look at the record. He went to Europe and came back championing the demands of Madame Binh and the Communists in Vietnam. He went to Nicaragua and championed Daniel Ortega and the Communists in the US congress. He opposed every single step that the great Ronald Reagan took in his defeat of the USSR. He has consistently opposed American strength in opposing evil and promoting democracy. Neville Chamberlain would have blushed! He does this through no love of evil, but he promotes evil just the same. He is what Lenin called the western useful idiot – the intellectual who sees a perfect world in an imperfect universe and, in his hubris, sacrifices all good in pursuit of a phantom, dealing with the devil and sacrificing millions to his illusions. If that is not enough, he is a shameless liar. I personally had enough of this with Clinton. At least with Clinton there was sex going on!

Appeasement?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The AAA Frame Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Chris Moore on November 01, 2004 at 10:31:04:

In Reply to: Re: Kerry Us Through Part I posted by Doug W on October 29, 2004 at 19:46:24:

It's easy to throw this emotionally charged term around but would have not invading Iraq been "appeasement"? Iraq was no longer a threat to American oil interests (oh excuse me American interests of promoting democracy) in the autocratic police state Saudi Kingdom or the almost as undemocratic(but not as repressive) Kuwaiti Sheikdom. Also Iraq was no longer a practical threat to Israel or even our Friends in the Islamic Republic of Iran for that matter. Admittedly Saddam visited atrocities on the heads of the Kurds, however with the no fly zones etc he hadnt persecuted the Kurds in over 10 years and barely had dominion over that part of Iraq. Also after GW I (Gulf War One not GW Bush) Saddam forces murders 10,000 - 30,000 Shiite civilians while US forces stood by, howver the no fly zone in the south and the shambolic nature of Saddam's sanctioned starved army has allowed the Shiites to live in relative peace for years now. So what great evil threat was being appeased by not invading Iraq? Certainly not the risk of more 9/11s;as is well documented NO Connection; even Bushie boy (but not Cheney) admits this.

One last aside I do sympathise with all the civilians Saddam killed in Iraq over the years of his rule. But was the rate of these murders any less when he was a US ally?