What Democrat would make a good US President?

GOD defiles Reason

Quote:
Chris: but some of us found it utterly humiliating and think it made the US look passive and weak.

So tell us what it made you want to do, Chris. Did it make you want to slaughter thousands of civilians who had nothing to do with it? We have a name for those kind of people, you know.

Quote:
We had the means to force the release of those hostages and we instead sat there and tried to reason with unreasonable people.

Do you think you are in any position to say what is reasonable?

Quote:
There are people today that believe that the Iranian hostage crisis set the stage for 9/11.

Those Rush Limbaugh glasses make you look soooo cute.

Quote:
I'm not ready to go that far, but there is logic in this opinion. Did Iraq actually fear the US would come to the aid of Kuwait when they invaded? Of course not. We didn't even have the balls to defend our own citizens in the 1970's, so why should Iraq have been be afraid the US would come to the rescue with Kuwait?

So you're going to gloss right over the 80's. What did Ronald 'Awesome' Reagan do in Beirut that might indicate to the rest of the Muslim world what the U.S. would do?

Quote:
So I'm not advocating nuking anyone, but I damn sure don't think we're doing ourselves any long-term service by pacifism.

Then spell out exactly what you think Carter should have done. Have the balls to lay your cards on the table instead of all this whiney name calling bullshit.

Quote:
What do you think would happen if Iran took 60 Americans hostage under Bush’s watch? You can bash Bush, but the guy has character and principles and will do what it takes to defend not only our borders,

Our borders? You must have been in a long deep sleep in the last few years.

Quote:
but our way of life and longevity.

No, Chris, he's planting the seeds of hatred that will keep us in danger for at least a generation. That hatred you felt toward the Iranians, multiply that several times and you still won't fathom the extent of Bush's blunder.

Quote:
I've never really been a big Bush fan,

Can you think of anything he's done wrong?

Quote:
but I created this thread hoping to hear some examples of quality Democrats that could handle the duties and responsibilities of Commander & Chief of the US armed forces.

No you didn't. You wanted to have a bashing fest.

Chris OConnor

God defiles Reason

Chris: What Democrat would make a good US President?
God: Does this smell like a far right wing partisan setting a trap?

I'm not "far right wing." I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. On every online test I've taken I am extremely far left with regards to just about all social issues, and the end result is I'm labeled as a moderate.

I wasn't setting a trap. I was looking for an open and honest debate. I don't know of a single Democrat that is suitable for the office of the Presidency, so I am asking for the opinions of the liberals on this board. With your logic hundreds of BookTalk threads designed to trigger a heated discussion are nothing more than "traps."

ADO: Jimmy Carter
God: Did someone just take the bait?

Take the bait? No, he answered the question. ADO gave his honest opinion and many members followed up with supporting posts. That is precisely why this community exists. You're the only one instigating trouble right now. We were having a healthy conversation. We all stand to learn from each other. I’ve never tried to come across as an authority on a damn thing around here.

Quote:
Then spell out exactly what you think Carter should have done. Have the balls to lay your cards on the table instead of all this whiney name calling bullshit.

Carter should have threatened the use of force and then used it if necessary. Would you like me to break down the entire operation into a play by play? I don't have that "exact" of a plan.

Is my post your very first exposure to the concept that Carter was a weak President? From your reaction Carter is your first cousin and you've never heard anyone challenge his actions, or lack of actions, while in the White House.

Chris: I've never really been a big Bush fan
God: Can you think of anything he's done wrong?

1. He invaded Iraq. I didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq. How’s that for a far right wing partisan?

2. He pushed for an Arab-owned company to be involved in US ports. This really blew my mind.

3. He has done a great deal to erode church-state separation by pushing "faith based initiatives."

4. He has unbalanced the Supreme Court by appointing too many conservatives.

As I've said over and over on BookTalk I don't care for a great deal of what Bush has done. How many conservatives do you hear criticizing Bush? If I'm so right wing why I am I so comfortable doing this? Maybe because I'm not who or how you just tried to label me.

If you enjoy BookTalk you need to breathe before you attack the owner of the community like that.

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 4/1/06 11:47 pm

riverc0il

Quote:
I don't know of a single Democrat that is suitable for the office of the Presidency, so I am asking for the opinions of the liberals on this board.

i don't know a single person period who is suitable for the office of the presidency. the office of the presidency has become some warped whacked out position no one can live up to and anyone who runs for it inevitably has issues and baggage they bring to the table. i think part of the problem is the setup, media hype, and voting system. until we fix issues that surround the presidency and pick the president, no one is going to live up to expectations as on one has for decades (reagan isn't a bi-partisanly agreed upon 'great president').

Quote:
How many conservatives do you hear criticizing Bush?

i actually hear a lot of conservatives critizing bush, especially recently with the port fisaco, the woman SC appointee, this boarder stuff now, etc. a lot of conservatives are jumping off the iraq band wagon now too. with an approval rating in the 30s, that means a lot of conservatives are not approving.

the whole conservative/liberal thing is crap. finally people are beginning to distinguish, as chris did, between fiscal and social. i think there are more areas to seperate out though. the biggest problem is so many people CLAIM to be fiscally conservative, but they are not. most especially republicans. at least most dems don't claim to be fiscally conservative. repubs have selective fiscally conservative agendas. cut back on programs (some of them might need cuts, i will agree) but then go 8 trillion dollars into debt!!! trying to fund a war while cutting taxes and the debt marches on while the value of the dollar drops and GDP isn't looking too hot either. etc.

fact is, dems and repubs are almost the exact same except for a few key hot button issues. of course, the usual social issues including abortion, gay rights, etc. and repubs seem to love cutting taxes at the expense of our country's future whereas dems take a more pragmatic approach that we actually need money to fund the country. but what other differences are there? both parties spend spend spend, they just have different pet social projects to spend money on. once again, i always come back to changing the voting system and getting third party more involved. a voting system such as IRV would allow third party to become viable and influence elections without a throw away vote. would third party win? probably not but the voting system change and influence of new ideas could radically effect elections and who gets nominated.

the whole dems vs. repubs thing has me so sick of the status quo, and most americans i know too. our democracy deserves better than this towing the party line on the status quo crap while we don't get any where. call me fed up.

GOD defiles Reason

Chris,

You missed a spot:

Quote:
GDR: Maybe it's your turn to define what you think protecting American lives means to you.

Since we're already (discussing?) Bush and Carter, how many Americans were killed on Carter's watch? Due to terrorism or any military blunder.

How many Americans have been killed on George W. Bush's watch? Due to terrorism or any military blunder.

You missed another spot:

Quote:
Chris: I'm not ready to go that far, but there is logic in this opinion. Did Iraq actually fear the US would come to the aid of Kuwait when they invaded? Of course not. We didn't even have the balls to defend our own citizens in the 1970's, so why should Iraq have been be afraid the US would come to the rescue with Kuwait?

GDR: So you're going to gloss right over the 80's. What did Ronald 'Awesome' Reagan do in Beirut that might indicate to the rest of the Muslim world what the U.S. would do?

If you're going to demonize one and deify the other, then let's get to the heart of their actions and inactions and take an honest look at where they have led us.

GOD defiles Reason

Quote:
Chris: With your logic hundreds of BookTalk threads designed to trigger a heated discussion are nothing more than "traps."

When you can demonstrate that you can make a logical argument, I'll take your "With your logic" premises seriously.

So if this thread was "designed to trigger a heated discussion," why are you acting so defensive now that it has become "heated?"

Quote:
We were having a healthy conversation.

Three out of four Doctors would disagree with that assessment. A healthy conversation would minimize the use of emotive language and responses would be directed at the ones who post their comments as opposed to switching the argument to the invisible liberal strawman. That's what Rush Limbaugh clones do.

Quote:
We all stand to learn from each other.

I'm learning from you now, Chris. That's what this dialogue is all about.

Quote:
I’ve never tried to come across as an authority on a damn thing around here.

I've never implied that you're an authority on anything either.

Quote:
Carter should have threatened the use of force and then used it if necessary. Would you like me to break down the entire operation into a play by play? I don't have that "exact" of a plan.

If you're interested in a "healthy conversation," then let's take steps that move beyond the polemicist account that "Carter is weak" "spineless" because he "allowed thugs to take hostages" and "did nothing about it."

You think he should have used force, tell us what kind of force he should have used and let's examine most likely cause and effect scenarios.

Quote:
Is my post your very first exposure to the concept that Carter was a weak President? From your reaction Carter is your first cousin and you've never heard anyone challenge his actions, or lack of actions, while in the White House.

And from your reaction: "Carter was spineless" "Reagan was an awesome President" you are demonstrating that you are not "labeled as a moderate."

Quote:
1. He invaded Iraq. I didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq. How’s that for a far right wing partisan?

That's not a bad start. What is it about invading Iraq that you didn't agree with?

Quote:
2. He pushed for an Arab-owned company to be involved in US ports. This really blew my mind.

Do you find that this was incongruent with a guy who "has character and principles and will do what it takes to defend not only our borders, but our way of life and longevity?"

Quote:
3. He has done a great deal to erode church-state separation by pushing "faith based initiatives."

Amen, brother. Amen.

Quote:
4. He has unbalanced the Supreme Court by appointing too many conservatives.

Yes, I agree with that, too. Except I question whether these guys are truly conservative, or merely conservative by brand name only. How do you think appointing these kind of conservatives will effect the country and the balance powers for the next decade or two or three?

Quote:
As I've said over and over on BookTalk I don't care for a great deal of what Bush has done. How many conservatives do you hear criticizing Bush?

That's an excellent point, Chris. If you're not a right wing partisan, why do you characterize so-called liberals as "Bush bashing," while characterizing so-called Conservatives as "criticizing Bush?"

Quote:
If you enjoy BookTalk you need to breathe before you attack the owner of the community like that.

I'm breathing just fine, Chris. This is, after all, just a dialogue -- a healthy conversation where people stand to learn from one another. Would you like to move beyond the use of emotive language, ad hominem remarks, false dichotomies, and address the person making the post instead of arguing with the invisible liberal far left strawman like a Limbaugh clone?

But let's not be ambiguous, Chris. Are you threatening me because I disagree with you? If not, then back up your arguments and deal with the content when your statements are challenged instead of making these vague threats just because someone questions the "owner of the community like that."

Niall001

Chris, just to clarify, I didn't actually think anybody (of note) had suggested nuking Iran. That was pure hyperbole. But there are those who wanted to see strong military action against Iran, not because diplomacy would not work but because they didn't want to feel passive, weak and humiliated. Those are the same individuals who talk about invading or arranging coups in 'enemy' states without ever considering the possibility that maybe supporting scumbag dictators might have something to do with the resentment that fuels anti-American activity in places like Iran.

Quote:
There are people today that believe that the Iranian hostage crisis set the stage for 9/11. I'm not ready to go that far, but there is logic in this opinion. Did Iraq actually fear the US would come to the aid of Kuwait when they invaded? Of course not. We didn't even have the balls to defend our own citizens in the 1970's, so why should Iraq have been be afraid the US would come to the rescue with Kuwait? Fortunately, Carter was long out of office.

Well if we're going to say that the Iran hostage situation might have cause 9/11 then it might also want to examine the cause of the Iran hostage situation. Remember the whole Shah mess?

And as for Iraq fearing invasion of Kuwait, it is often said that he received an "OK" from the USA before the invasion. Ever read that meeting he supposedly had with April Glaspie? And indeed if you look at the John Kelly at the time, then you'd see that the US was not saying one way or the other that it would support Kuwait.

And furthermore, Saddam, knew just how "principled" the US was in regards foreign policy. The US had not taken any action against him when he had used illegal weapons and tactics against Iran, or even when he used them on his own people. Hell, he'd gotten most of those weapons from the West anyway.

Maybe, just maybe, the fact that the US had supported Saddam when he invaded Iran made the man think that he could get away with invading Kuwait.

Quote:
You can bash Bush, but the guy has character and principles and will do what it takes to defend not only our borders, but our way of life and longevity.

Principles? Like what?

Given that Al Queda's popularity and strength (almost the same thing really) have increased under his watch (and largely due to his actions) how do you think that anything he has done has made you any safer? And given that he has taken away many of your rights, I'd hardly say that he has defended your way of life.

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT