+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Not for sheeple (/thread-217106.html)
- Trooper - 08-30-2004 09:19 AM
This editorial pretty well sums it up for me
From "The Seattle Times"
Kerry for President
Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.
The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.
The first issue is the war. When the Bush administration began beating the drums for war on Iraq, this page said repeatedly that he had not justified it. When war came, this page closed ranks, wanting to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt. The troops deserved it. In hindsight, their commander in chief did not.
The first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of Iraq. This will be no easy task, but Kerry is more likely to do it — and with some understanding of Middle Eastern realities — than is Bush.
The election of Kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the White House and Pentagon. It would end the back-door draft of American reservists and the use of American soldiers as imperial police. It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam.
A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States. A political change should allow Americans to examine the powers they have given the federal government under the Patriot Act, and the powers the president has claimed by executive order.
This page had high hopes for President Bush regarding taxing and spending. We endorsed his cut in income taxes, expecting that it would help business and discipline new public spending. In the end, there was no discipline in it. In control of the Senate, the House and the presidency for the first time in half a century, the Republicans have had a celebration of spending.
Kerry has made many promises, and might spend as much as Bush if given a Congress under the control of Democrats. He is more likely to get a divided government, which may be a good thing.
Bush was also supposed to be the candidate who understood business. In some ways he has, but he has been too often the candidate of big business only. He has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from Canada.
In our own industry, the Bush appointees on the Federal Communications Commission have pushed to relax restrictions on how many TV stations, radio stations and newspapers one company may own. In an industry that is the steward of the public's right to speak, this is a threat to democracy itself — and Kerry has stood up against it.
Bush talked like the candidate of free trade, a policy the Pacific Northwest relies upon. He turned protectionist on steel and Canadian lumber. Admittedly, Kerry's campaign rhetoric is even worse on trade. But for the previous 20 years, Kerry had a strong record in support of trade, and we have learned that the best guide to what politicians do is what they have done in the past, not what they say.
On some matters, we always had to hold our noses to endorse Bush. We noted four years ago that he was too willing to toss aside wild nature, and to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We still disagree. On clean air, forests and fish, we generally side with Kerry.
We also agree with Sen. Kerry that Social Security should not offer private accounts.
Four years ago, we stated our profound disagreement with Bush on abortion, and then in one of his first acts as president, he moved to reinstate a ban on federal money for organizations that provide information about abortions overseas. We disagree also with Bush's ban on federal money for research using any new lines of stem cells.
There is in these positions a presidential blending of politics and religion that is wrong for the government of a diverse republic.
Our largest doubt about Kerry is his idea that the federal debt may be stabilized, and dozens of new programs added, merely by raising taxes on the top 2 percent of Americans. Class warfare is a false promise, and we hope he forgets it.
Certainly, the man now in office forgot some of the things he said so fetchingly four years ago.
<a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002016659_kerryed27.html' target='_blank'>Seattle Times</a>
- Ninerfan1 - 08-30-2004 09:44 AM
Isn't it some what ironic that you say this isn't for the sheeple (lol) yet claim it states what you believe to be true? Seems to me you're the "sheeple" here, especially given that you need OTHER people to sum up what you think and can't do it yourself.
Baaaah Trooper sheeple. :laugh:
- DrTorch - 08-30-2004 09:57 AM
Trooper Wrote:This editorial pretty well sums it up for meThey fail to demonstrate why.
From "The Seattle Times"
Kerry for President
The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.
Quote:The first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of Iraq. This will be no easy task, but Kerry is more likely to do it — and with some understanding of Middle Eastern realities — than is Bush.
Wishful thinking. Kerry has never demonstrated this.
Quote:The election of Kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the White House and Pentagon. It would end the back-door draft of American reservists and the use of American soldiers as imperial police. It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam.
A less-belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the United States.
Ok, at least they tip their hand. However, this has been proven to fail *repeatedly*, under the Clinton administration and the Carter administration. Honestly, this is the same Kissinger-esque logic that failed Nixon as well.
Idealogy is great, but it's nice to have some sense of reality too.
Quote:Bush was also supposed to be the candidate who understood business. In some ways he has, but he has been too often the candidate of big business only. He has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from Canada.
And rightly so. You can't have it both ways: Strict FDA guidelines plus a litigation-happy public (hey to John Edwards) AND cheap drugs. The FDA standards are perhaps the strictest in the world, start compromising those and the Seattle Times will have plenty of news for future issues.
BTW, how long is Canada going to deal w/ subsidizing US purchases of cheap drugs? That's one more thing to backlash using this naive thought process.
Quote:In our own industry, the Bush appointees on the Federal Communications Commission have pushed to relax restrictions on how many TV stations, radio stations and newspapers one company may own. In an industry that is the steward of the public's right to speak, this is a threat to democracy itself — and Kerry has stood up against it.
I agree this is a problem. And a huge disappointment. However, things weren't any better under Clinton and the failed deregulation of Telecom.
Moreover, if you take the mantle of the "stesard of the public's right to speak" then you damn well better start doing it. Folks are sick of the biased and incomplete reporting seen by the popular media. Hence Fox News and AM talk radion.
I also live to see the day when this paper bashes Microsoft and their unfortunate monopoly.
Quote:Bush talked like the candidate of free trade, a policy the Pacific Northwest relies upon. He turned protectionist on steel and Canadian lumber.
And as soon as the protections against steel were lifted, the prices SHOT through the roof, hindering the US economy. It's easy to talk "free trade" but it's tougher to do when other countries aren't complying.
Quote:On some matters, we always had to hold our noses to endorse Bush. We noted four years ago that he was too willing to toss aside wild nature, and to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We still disagree. On clean air, forests and fish, we generally side with Kerry.
Unfounded, reactionary positions. Particularly dangerous when it comes to scientific matters.
The great onslaught of nature wouldn't have happened, and if you go w/ their preceding paragraph, then Kerry gives NO evidence of being good for the environment.
In fact there IS good reason not to support Bush in this area: opening oil reserves keeps the US from pursuing alternative technologies and fuels. NO Administration has championed this cause beyond token rhetoric. But, if you're going to take a position, do it for the right reason, otherwise it's proof of your ignorance.
Quote:We also agree with Sen. Kerry that Social Security should not offer private accounts.
Isn't this Greenspan's issue? Unfortunately, no one is putting out a real solution. But, it's clear this paper likes to keep things simple (minded).
Quote:Four years ago, we stated our profound disagreement with Bush on abortion, and then in one of his first acts as president, he moved to reinstate a ban on federal money for organizations that provide information about abortions overseas.
That's their prerogative, but it again flies in the face of science, and this time ethics too.
Quote:We disagree also with Bush's ban on federal money for research using any new lines of stem cells.
Of course the issue is far more complex, and many conservatives complained that this opened up an area of research that is ethically questionable, but why *complicate* these issues?
Quote:There is in these positions a presidential blending of politics and religion that is wrong for the government of a diverse republic.
Unjustified, and ironically, unfounded. Preserving life is the essence of a government. If you start violating the rights of the weakest (unborn children), it will escalate. Euthenasia? Not a problem in the Pacific NW. Then what? "How about that greedy Christopher Reeves? Why doesn't he give up his eyes, kidneys and liver for someone who could use them? Not just be a pathetic blob, taking up real people's oxygen." See the point?
Then there's the little matter of mature stem cells being yielding better results...
Quote:Our largest doubt about Kerry is his idea that the federal debt may be stabilized, and dozens of new programs added, merely by raising taxes on the top 2 percent of Americans. Class warfare is a false promise, and we hope he forgets it.
Given his very limited campaign platform, what else is he going by? Don't forget, this paper just said a few paragraphs up that the *past* is the best predictor of the future. Why would anyone believe Kerry would change?
Quote:This editorial pretty well sums it up for me
Glad I could help identify some areas to think about.