View Single Post
Old 08-30-2005, 12:12 PM   #53
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It's easy to quote someone out of context. If America was right to "pre-emptively defend" then they can prove it, pass the global test and get multilateral support, right?

I know it's easier to just quote a bit of what someone says out of context, but ... Kerry said the reverse that he wouldn't ever hand the decision to the UN.

peter - do you write for the new york times? the washington post? talk about quoting someone out of context...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
in fact, if anyone cares to read through what that blowhard said in his entirety during that debate, here you go. it's painful, make no mistake about it - painful on both sides. - http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

the bottom line is simple - his words were understood across the country to mean exactly one thing, that john kerry, if elected, absolutely WOULD concede presidential decisions regarding safety in america to the united nations. maybe not all, but even one would be too much. and who knows? maybe he did mean all. whatever. doesn't matter. he backtracked like a motherfucker the day after, but the damage had been done - and furthermore, it opened the door to the public so we were able to see what the democrats en masse believed in terms of where america should be.

this is weird going over this again. it's not even yesterday's news. it's ancient. kerry's not only a loser, he sucks as a senator. ever since the votes were tallied and he lost, he's disappeared. he's a nothing, a has-been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
Democrats believe that multi-lateral action works better than unilateral, actually, for the most part the conservatives seem to agree (based on what's happening elsewhere in the world with American foreign policy).
the concept of allying oneself with other nations 'round the world is indeed an old and tried and true way for nations to get what they need from others when they need it. such allies come and go. the trick is not alienating other countries so badly when mutual needs do not coincide that when needs do arise, there is at least the possibility of negotiations for mutually beneficial results. i believe you'll find that true of all nations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
I see nothing wrong with looking to other countries to see how they do things and pinching their ideas, other countries do this with the US and the US do this with other countries, to suggest otherwise is silly. Now that the full Kerry quote is out, I expect you to stop saying Kerry wants to hand sovreignty to the UN, and start saying that you think it's disgusting that Kerry wants the US to have to prove, to answer to the rest of the world, I don't care what spin you put on it, but to say that the democrats and Kerry have stated they want to hand over US sovereignty to the US is a fat lie and I don't discuss lies.
so don't discuss it. what are you trying to do here? take me hostage until i phrase my words the way you want me to?

the democratic party would be fine with a candidate of theirs using the united nations as a sounding board for american policy. and yes, no matter how you slice it, that entails handing over some degree of sovereignty. who knows? maybe a democratic president wouldn't approach the united nations in regard to what he or she wanted to order for lunch on a given day, but who knows...


Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
Yes, but there's that respect thing again.
maybe we just have different ideas of how respect is earned and ultimately shown.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
I get the feeling that half the reasons you're so against what you believe is the left is probably due to name-calling and negative politics, and this happens on both sides of the saddening polerisation of US politics. (Hey, this can be what the British guy is useful for).
i have no problem with name-calling, although elected representatives for the country who continually use such tactics in an attempt to bring the both sides of the country together (tongue-in-cheek) does present a rather odd front. i think it's childish behavior, much like you accused me of earlier, but that specific point doesn't turn me off to the main message they try to get out. it's the rest of their whiny-ass, unfocused, anti-american platform i object to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
I have noticed that conservatives aren't actually that fond of Bush but go along with the Neocons because they still think Bush warts and all is better than the alternative. I'll be interested to see if someone more conservative and small government is put forward for the next election now that Bush can't run anymore.
bah. siding with someone in politics, much like garnering allies around the world changes with the direction of the wind.

what i hope for in the next election is a 3-party race. i'd very much enjoy having a libertarian candidate run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
Well, I don't mind the odd abrasiveness, I just think that when you're browbeating other posters, it'll just mean only one voice gets heard or wants to talk and where's the fun in that?
it's all about me, peter and as long as i'm having fun nothing else matters (tongue-in-cheek again). not to worry, your voice is heard - look at all the responses you're getting.
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote