← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Knekkeben
Thread ID: 15491 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2004-10-30
2004-10-30 18:38 | User Profile
On such forums as this, I've encountered the opinion that John Kerry and George Bush will likely be "the same" as presidents. Why is it believed? The belief itself seems vague. What exactly does it mean that they will be the same?
2004-10-30 19:12 | User Profile
Do you think the government will grow less under Bush than under Kerry?
Both Bush and Kerry support homosexual civil unions.
Bush won't have the support to invade Iran or Syria and Kerry is just as likely to spank them with a little bombing.
Both Bush and Kerry refuse to protect the US border.
In practice, how do you think the two will be different?
2004-10-30 19:27 | User Profile
Do you think the government will grow less under Bush than under Kerry?
Both Bush and Kerry support homosexual civil unions.
Bush won't have the support to invade Iran or Syria and Kerry is just as likely to spank them with a little bombing.
Both Bush and Kerry refuse to protect the US border.
In practice, how do you think the two will be different?
2004-10-30 19:33 | User Profile
On the contrary, I have concrete reason to suspect very strongly that John Kerry, should he be elected, will persist in this new epoch of American politics (especially in regards to American foreign policy). My question is this. Why is it believed that he will? What is the evidence?
2004-10-30 19:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]In practice, how do you think the two will be different?[/QUOTE]
The main issues I have with the Bush administration is immigration, trade and foreign policy/interventionism. All three are huge and more than enough for me not to support Bush as my governor here in Texas or as president.
But just the other day I watched a hit piece on Bush, some kind of news expose of how he was a tool of evangelicals and some kind of fundamentalist religious nutcase. Although it was supposed to have the opposite effect, that program made me come as close to supporting Bush as I ever, ever have.
Sure Bush is super-wobbly on issues like homos marrying and the like, but there are alot of little things one doesn't think about right away. Things like embryo genetic testing, partial birth abortion bans, judiciary appointments for example. These are issues where there is a tremendous difference between the flaming liberal Kerry and Bush, even taking the latter's wobbliness into consideration.
Ultimately I don't think anyone's life is going to be dramatically diferrent depending on Kerry or Bush being in office and I would like to punish Bush for Iraq. But between the two parties each man represents, I still have much, much more in common with Bush's side than the dregs of our society represented on the Democrat side.
2004-10-30 20:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]But just the other day I watched a hit piece on Bush, some kind of news expose of how he was a tool of evangelicals and some kind of fundamentalist religious nutcase. Although it was supposed to have the opposite effect, that program made me come as close to supporting Bush as I ever, ever have.[/QUOTE]
On most issues, including such things as immigration, Bush is at least a little better than Kerry. If Bush told the truth about Iraq, even the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have been such a bad deal.
But, in practice, for example, what good is a partial birth abortion ban when it is blocked by judges? It's just a worthless bone thrown to the pro-lifers. Even where Bush may be conservative, he doesn't spend much energy to promote those things.
Kerry's greater liberalism is more likely to be frustrated by Congress than Bush's moderate liberalism. The phenomenon may be all that's needed to make Kerry a better president. For example, under Kerry (compare to Clinton), government spending will probably grow less than under Bush.
The prospect of a Kerry victory is scarier, even if in practice it might not be worse. Also, I'm not to keen on seeing Bush rewarded with a second term for his service to the neocons during his first term.
BTW, when Bush is bashed for being a tool of fundamentalist, it does make me feel better about Bush. But, this is actually another reason why it might be better for Kerry to win. Bush's conservative Christian rhetoric causes conservative Christians to be tarnished by the Bush's misdeeds and the negative consequences of his actions. I like it better when a presdident sticks to liberal rhetoric and the liberals are tarnished.
2004-10-30 20:43 | User Profile
Tex:
You raise an important point regarding Kerry representing the dregs of society. One of the strongest arguments for the "lessor of two evils" thesis is when you look at who gets to advance their agendas by attaching themselves to the respective candidates.
One can not imagine a cattle rancher in the western U.S. voting for Kerry, knowing that by doing so he/she will help to advance the cause of the various eco-wacko, tree hugging, dirt worshiping, evil idiots who would like to turn the rural areas of the country into wilderness preserves, national parks, playgrounds for the watermellons. (You know the type, green on the outside, red in the middle).
For many people voting for a dolt like the shrub is probably seen more as an exercise in self preservation than any rubberstamp of the Likudnick, neocon agenda. They are simply scared of the loony tunes that Kerry (Kohn) panders to.
2004-10-30 20:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Knekkeben]On such forums as this, I've encountered the opinion that John Kerry and George Bush will likely be "the same" as presidents. Why is it believed? The belief itself seems vague. What exactly does it mean that they will be the same?[/QUOTE]
To me they are the same because they both support the Khazar Zionist state of Israel,,,,,,
As long as there is no freedom for the Palestinians there will be no freedom for America.
Like bin said "the freedom of the America is in the hands of its people"
And like I say "When there is no freedom for the people then the people have the right to change the government for the people are the government"
2004-10-30 22:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight] For many people voting for a dolt like the shrub is probably seen more as an exercise in self preservation than any rubberstamp of the Likudnick, neocon agenda. They are simply scared of the loony tunes that Kerry (Kohn) panders to.[/QUOTE] This is precisely the subject that I meant to discuss: American foreign policy. The implication is often made that John Kerry would subordinate American interests to Israeli interests (or perhaps treat them as though they're alike) just as George W. Bush has apparently done. What is the evidence for this?
2004-10-30 22:28 | User Profile
Knekkeben:
Kerry has made public statements to the effect that the U.S. will continue it's "special relationship" with Israel and that a Kerry (Kohn) administration will be Israel's best friend................. :caiphas: = :wub: You know the drill.
But if you will excuse me for a bit, I must run to the bathroom, for I have a sudden urge to vomit, just thinking about these verminous traitors.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From the official Kerry- Edwards 2004 website:[url]http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/jewish_americans/[/url]
John Kerry for President
Strengthening Israel's Security and the U.S.-Israel Special Relationship
ââ¬ÅThe people of Israel should also know that, as president, my commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state will be unwavering. For nineteen years, this is a pledge I have kept in the United States Senate ââ¬â whether through my votes on economic aid, military security, or the location of the U.S. Embassy. And it is one I will continue to keep.ââ¬Â --John Kerry, Speech to the Anti-Defamation League, May 3, 2004
At the forefront of the fight for Israelââ¬â¢s security throughout his entire nineteen year career in the Senate, John Kerry has built an impeccable pro-Israel voting record. Along with his colleague John Edwards, he has stood time and again for Israelââ¬â¢s security. John Kerry and John Edwards have never wavered in their commitment to Israelââ¬â¢s security, and they never will.
John Kerry did not wait until he was running for president of the United States to visit Israel - he has traveled there throughout his public life. Through his meetings with Israeli political and military leaders ââ¬â and especially with ordinary Israelis ââ¬â he has gained a deep understanding of the everyday security threat the Israeli people face. His running mate, John Edwards, visited Israel in August 2001, meeting with Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres.
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that in uncertain times like these we must reaffirm and strengthen our special relationship with Israel, our most steadfast friend and ally in the region. Their commitment to a safe, secure, democratic Jewish state of Israel is unwavering. It comes from a shared personal belief that Israelââ¬â¢s cause must be Americaââ¬â¢s cause.
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that anti-Semitism ââ¬â often masked in anti-Israel rhetoric -- is a dangerous trend threatening both Israel and Jewish communities around the world. They have spent their careers standing up to prejudice in all of its forms, and they will continue that fight every day because America cannot remain silent when the voice of hate rises.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR AMERICAââ¬â¢S SUPPORT FOR OUR ALLY ISRAEL
ââ¬Â¢ We will never pressure Israel to compromise its security.
ââ¬Â¢ We will never expect Israel to negotiate for peace without a credible partner.
ââ¬Â¢ We will always work to provide the political and military and economic help for Israelââ¬â¢s fight against terror.
ââ¬Â¢ We will restore American leadership in the Middle East because Israelââ¬â¢s security is bolstered when we lead and America is safer.
A BOLD PLAN: SUPPORTING ISRAEL, RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
Supporting Israelââ¬â¢s Right to Respond to Terrorism. John Kerry and John Edwards support Israelââ¬â¢s right of self defense to eliminate threats to its citizens, including actions taken by Israel against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups. In spring 2002, John Kerry and John Edwards co-sponsored a resolution expressing solidarity with Israelââ¬â¢s efforts to provide security to its citizens by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian areas. The resolution called for continued assistance in strengthening Israel's homeland defenses and reaffirmed a commitment to Israelââ¬â¢s right to self-defense. As Kerry said in April 2004, appearing on Meet the Press, ââ¬ÅI believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it.ââ¬Â
Yasser Arafat: A Failed Leader Unfit to be a Partner for Peace. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Yasser Arafat is a failed leader unfit to be a partner for peace. They support Arafatââ¬â¢s isolation. John Kerry and John Edwards will work tirelessly to ensure that new, responsible Palestinian leadership -- committed in word and deed to ending the violence, fighting terror and promoting democracy -- emerges.
Supporting the Security Fence. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Israelââ¬â¢s security fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence is an important tool in Israelââ¬â¢s fight against terrorism. Kerry strongly condemned the International Court of Justiceââ¬â¢s July ruling on the fence, and he has always made clear that he did not believe that the ICJ should even be considering the issue. John Kerry believes our nation is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes Palestinians. Israelââ¬â¢s own Supreme Court has looked at the very same issues and Kerry believes we should respect that process.
Supporting Israelââ¬â¢s Withdrawal Plan and the Creation of a Palestinian State. John Kerry and John Edwards support Israelââ¬â¢s unprecedented plan to withdraw from the Gaza strip and they support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. They believe that the creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. They understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949ââ¬âand they understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed on.
Maintaining Israelââ¬â¢s Military Superiority. In a Kerry-Edwards administration, America will continue to guarantee Israelââ¬â¢s military superiority. John Kerry and John Edwards support carefully restricting arms sales to Arab countries in the region. John Kerry opposed the sale of Maverick missiles and F-15 fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, and voted to prohibit the Department of Defense from awarding contracts to any foreign entities that cooperate with the Arab boycott of Israel.
Supporting Aid to Israel. John Kerry and John Edwards have always voted to maintain critical foreign aid to our ally Israel, resisting any attempts to cut it over their years in the Senate. In the early 1990s, John Kerry fought President George H.W. Bush when Bush threatened to veto loan guarantees for the costs of resettling Soviet and Ethiopian refugees in Israel. As John Kerry said of Bushââ¬â¢s attempt to make guarantees dependent on Israeli concessions, ââ¬ÅIt would be highly unfair to hold Israel hostage to a peace process that it has no control over.ââ¬Â Kerry also co-sponsored legislation to provide the loan guarantees.
Fighting to Move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. John Kerry and John Edwards have long advocated moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Israelââ¬â¢s indisputable capital. In 1999, John Kerry and John Edwards signed a letter taking President Clinton to task for not moving the embassy.
Standing with Israel in the UN and other International Organizations. John Kerry and John Edwards have always believed the U.S. must stand solidly behind Israel at the U.N. and other international organizations. They recognize that the U.N. must establish more credibility on Arab-Israeli matters, and John Kerry will never hesitate to wield a U.S. veto on the Security Council in the face of anti-Israel/anti-Zionist resolutions. As John Kerry said in opposing the U.N. General Assemblyââ¬â¢s one-sided resolution regarding Israelââ¬â¢s security fence in July, ââ¬ÅAs president I will stand up for Israelââ¬â¢s security in the UN or any international organization.ââ¬Â
Strengthening Israelââ¬â¢s Economy While Working Together to Secure Homelands. John Kerry and John Edwards will work to secure the U.S. homeland while simultaneously strengthening the Israeli economy. He will help to jumpstart Israelââ¬â¢s high tech sector by working to adapt many of the innovative technologies Israel has developed to combat terrorism and protect its homeland for U.S. use.
Restoring American Leadership in the Middle East John Kerry and John Edwards believe that bringing security and stability to the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state. In a Kerry-Edwards administration, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be an afterthought, but a priority that will always get the consistent, high-level attention it deserves. John Kerry and John Edwards will bring determined leadership to ending the violence and developing a new Palestinian leadership - one that is committed in word and deed to fighting terror and meeting the needs of its people. John Kerry and John Edwards will work tirelessly to achieve a stable, lasting peace with security in the Middle East and ensure that American leadership is a source of hope in the region.
Ending the Financing of Terror. John Kerry and John Edwards will demand accountability and action from all states, including Arab and European countries, to eliminate sources of funds that flow freely to terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Aqsa Brigade.
Ending Iranââ¬â¢s Nuclear Program. John Kerry and John Edwards understand that a nuclear armed Iran poses an unacceptable risk to the U.S., Israel and the rest of the free world. As president, John Kerry will lead our allies in a comprehensive international effort that brings all available resources to bear on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability.
Ending Americaââ¬â¢s Dangerous Dependence on Mideast Oil and Getting Serious About Saudi Support for Terror. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to reduce America's dependence on Mideast oil over the next ten years because they know that only if we are serious about energy independence, can we finally be serious about confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological backing for Islamic fundamentalist jihadists. As John Kerry said in accepting the Democratic nomination, ââ¬ÅI want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation ââ¬â not the Saudi royal family. And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.ââ¬Â
Fighting Saudi Government Anti-Semitism. John Kerry and John Edwards have condemned anti-Semitic comments made at all levels of Saudi government. John Kerry has acted while George Bush remained silent in the face of remarks that call into question the Saudi commitment to fighting terrorism. In May, John Kerry condemned outrageous anti-Semitic comments by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, who blamed ââ¬ËZionistsââ¬â¢ for terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. Kerry said Abdullahââ¬â¢s statements raised ââ¬Åserious questions about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabiaââ¬â¢s commitment to combating terrorism,ââ¬Â and Kerry strongly criticized President Bush for saying nothing. ââ¬ÅAs president,ââ¬Â Kerry said, ââ¬ÅI will never permit this kind of attack to go unanswered.ââ¬Â In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League in May, Kerry said: ââ¬ÅWith Saudi-funded hate speech littering the textbooks of children and the Saudi interior minister claiming that 'the Jews' were responsible for 9/11, our current administration thinks that our current relationship with this regime is acceptable. I do not ââ¬â and I intend to be a president who holds Saudi Arabia accountable for its conduct.ââ¬Â
Holding Syria Accountable. John Kerry and John Edwards are co-sponsors of the Syria Accountability Act, legislation to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East. In May, Kerry criticized the Bush administration for its delay in imposing sanctions on Syria.
Paid for and authorized by Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.
2004-10-30 22:49 | User Profile
Check the following link for Bush's official position, and we also have the record of his administration for the past four years.
[url]http://www.georgewbush.com/JewishTeam[/url]
After visiting [I]those last two websites[/I] , I must take my computer out to the garden and shake out all the manure - should grow 20 ft. tall corn next year.
2004-10-30 23:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]Knekkeben:
Kerry has made public statements to the effect that the U.S. will continue it's "special relationship" with Israel.[/QUOTE] Yes, of course, but in American politics, I would expect that the preferential treatment of Israel would continue despite whoever's elected as American president. What I mean to say is that it's as though John Kerry himself is somehow aberrant to an ordinary Democratic presidential candidate, or that the Democrat Party itself is changing fundamentally (at least in its leadership). I don't at all disagree that his being elected would mean a continuation of this preferential treatment to Israel. What I do hope to better understand is exactly how the preferential treatment of Israel would continue (and maybe expand) under a Democratic administration. I'm still a little dubious of the claim that John Kerry would actually treat Israeli interests as urgently as has George W. Bush by reason of his neoconservative statesmen (i.e. unmanning/destroying enemies to Israel), but the thought itself is a product of evidence that he may do just that.
Ideological and even direct, apparently collaborative connections exist between neoconversatives and those who promote John Kerry's "progressive internationalism." Progressive internationalism, which can best be summarized as establishing American dominance (especially in the Middle East) multilaterally (an absurdity), would serve to advance Israeli interests most likely for the sake of Israeli interests. Stephen Sniegoski explains some of these connections ([url="http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_kerry_intervent.htm"]http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_kerry_intervent.htm[/url]), but he fails to explain a very important one: Martin Peretz. Martin Peretz is the proprietary of "The New Republic." Although it's recognized as a politically liberal publication, it's actually much more closely aligned with neoconservative ideology than with traditionally Democratic ideology: more or less, it's become Zionist since Martin Peretz (a Zionist himself) became owner in the 1970's, advocating firm support for Israel and a more hawkish American foreign policy. In fact, Martin Peretz himself seems to be a member of some political faction within the Democrat Party that was established to escape the policies and prejudices of the New Left for exactly the same reasons that the neoconservatives migrated "rightward" to the Republican Party (at exactly the same time): i.e. prejudice against Israel in favor of Palestinians and the Third World in general and pacifist undercurrents within the Democrat Party. Martin Peretz' publication serves as the primary outlet for the "Democratic Leadership Council" so much as I know, which is the source (of two) of progressive internationalism. In other words, despite political affiliation, those who control Democratic and Republican foreign policy are basically the same people, and they promote this sort of foreign policy for the same reason.
This is the sort of evidence that ought to be sought. What other such evidence is there in favor of this belief?
2004-10-31 23:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Knekkeben]What other such evidence is there in favor of this belief?[/QUOTE]
In addition, I was casually watching "Hannity and Colmes" during the Democratic National Convention and heard something from William Bennett that shocked me. Of course, the "opposition" isn't always completely candid, but here it is. Speaking of the Democratic platform, he said:
COLMES: You wrote a piece for "National Review" and you talk about
the nature of the debate. You don't like the way the debate is going and yet we're hearing that John Kerry was very clear. He wants a positive message here in Boston. So what's wrong with that.
BENNETT: A positive message is fine, Alan, if you can keep it, if you
can contain it. Also the message of the platform is fine if you can keep it. The platform is very interesting. It says it's perfectly reasonable to support the war in Iraq. He wants a larger military.
[B]It says preemptive strikes are fine.[/B] It supports the Patriot Act. It
says a host of very interesting things. Is that really what the people here believe? I've been talking to them and they didn't know that that's what their platform says.