Proposed Slogan for John Kerry

[dddooo]

Quote from cdbern:


Kerry, serving in the Senate has been able to maintain some obscurity. His voting record is in perfect alignment with a socialist/communist platform/agenda.
...
The Democratic Party today is not what it was 25 years ago. Today Socialists and Communists are fully embedded and you better take notice of it. It isn't some kind of joke, believe me, THEY aren't joking. Their objective is to turn this country into first a Socialist country, then a Communist country.

What a load of BS. Republican re-election machine in action. Lies, exagerations, distortions, quotes and votes taken out of context. Expectations, unfortunately justified, that americans are ignorant of the senate's inner workings and the voting process. You guys manage to criticize Kerry for votes he cast in favor of Cheney's and Bush Senior's bills and supported by most republicans. Or on votes for military cuts when republican submitted bills calling for bigger cuts.

You attempt to portray war hero Kerry as Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx all in one. While I disagree with democrats on A LOT OF issues, let me tell you something - I lived in an eastern european communist country for years. I KNOW COMMUNISTS. KERRY IS NO COMMUNIST. Kerry is not even a western european style socialist like new spanish PM. Kusinich maybe, but certainly not Kerry. You know nothing about it, absolutly nothing, you're just spewing republican propaganda.

I understand that with failing war on terror, unjustified war in Iraq turning quadmire and faltering economy portraying Kerry as a Commi may be your only chance to get Bush re-elected and unfortunately it may actually work. With Bush's warchest you may be able to brainwash enough ignorant people to win the elections.

Even if it does work, calling Kerry, who risked his life and fought against communism in Vietnam, a Communist is disgusting.

 

[max401]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Do, or do you not think the situation in Afghanistan is an issue that relates to terrorism?

The bigger question is implementing your idea to stop the Afghanistan opium production. Consider, for instance:

The country is roughly the size of Texas;

Consisting of, for the most part, rugged mountains;

80% of the labor force is involved in agriculture;

Poppy cultivation is 30,750 hectares (about 76,000 acres) spread across 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles);

Afghanistan is the largest producer of opium in the world, about 1,300 metric tons (1,432 US tons) of production estimated to be one-third of the country's GNP.

So what's your solution? You want Bush to simply flip a switch and end opium production? Not that you care, but what would happen if it was possible? What happens to the population when one-third of a country's GNP simply evaporates? You think Bush & Co. is simply ignoring the situation? That's what you seem to imply.

 

[ARogueTrader]

So it is a tough problem to burn down all the poppy fields...so?

If we spent the money doing just that, rather than the money, time, and lives spent in Iraq, how far along would we be in ending that poppy field business? Who knows, we might even have caught Osama by now if our attention was fully in Afghanistan, and perhaps more than 200 people would be alive in Spain today.....

1. Do you contend that opium production does not help to finance Al Queda?

2. Do you contend that opium production does not help to finance organized crime in America, or help to fund the drug dealers organizations, or help keep drug addiction afloat in America, and indirectly keep crime levels high (much of the crime in America is directly related to drugs)?

3. Are you saying that opium production in Afghanistan is not a worthy problem nor a concern for the US, and our interests?

4. Do you believe that if Afghanistan had oil reserves the size of Iraq, and Iraq only had nothing but just a "poppy field" economy, that we would still be spending billions of tax payer dollars nation building in Iraq and not in Afghanistan?

Quote from max401:

The bigger question is implementing your idea to stop the Afghanistan opium production. Consider, for instance:

The country is roughly the size of Texas;

Consisting of, for the most part, rugged mountains;

80% of the labor force is involved in agriculture;

Poppy cultivation is 30,750 hectares (about 76,000 acres) spread across 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles);

Afghanistan is the largest producer of opium in the world, about 1,300 metric tons (1,432 US tons) of production estimated to be one-third of the country's GNP.

So what's your solution? You want Bush to simply flip a switch and end opium production? Not that you care, but what would happen if it was possible? What happens to the population when one-third of a country's GNP simply evaporates? You think Bush & Co. is simply ignoring the situation? That's what you seem to imply.

 

[max401]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

So it is a tough problem to burn down all the poppy fields...so?

If we spent the money doing just that, rather than the money, time, and lives spent in Iraq, how far along would we be in ending that poppy field business? Who knows, we might even have caught Osama by now if our attention was fully in Afghanistan, and perhaps more than 200 people would be alive in Spain today.....

1. Do you contend that opium production does not help to finance Al Queda?

2. Do you contend that opium production does not help to finance organized crime in America, or help to fund the drug dealers organizations, or help keep drug addiction afloat in America, and indirectly keep crime levels high (much of the crime in America is directly related to drugs)?

3. Are you saying that opium production in Afghanistan is not a worthy problem nor a concern for the US, and our interests?

4. Do you believe that if Afghanistan had oil reserves the size of Iraq, and Iraq only had nothing but just a "poppy field" economy, that we would still be spending billions of tax payer dollars nation building in Iraq and not in Afghanistan?

Whether I agree with what seems to be your position and reasoning to do something about the opium production in Afghanistan, matters not.

Your solution seems to be, " to burn down all the poppy fields." I submit that it is not that simple a task, considering the logistics I presented in my earlier post.

Further, I can find no credence in your suggestion of possibilities that Bush was "ignorant, stupid or complicit." Just as Clinton & Co. was not prior (concerning this subject), nor Ford in 1994 in "failing" to burn all the coca out of South America.

FWIW- Do you know how China, on a fairly instantaneous basis, "threw the switch" and ended the majority of opium use when the Communist regime took over? They simply had all the end users shot. However, I don't think that is an option here.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Are you suggesting Bush's non action is justified on the basis of what Clinton or Ford did not do?

Is our precedent for a current president that they do or not do what other presidents have done when presented with a problem?

Note: You did not answer all the questions I put forth to you in my last post.

Quote from max401:

Whether I agree with what seems to be your position and reasoning to do something about the opium production in Afghanistan, matters not.

Your solution seems to be, " to burn down all the poppy fields." I submit that it is not that simple a task, considering the logistics I presented in my earlier post.

Further, I can find no credence in your suggestion of possibilities that Bush was "ignorant, stupid or complicit." Just as Clinton & Co. was not prior (concerning this subject), nor Ford in 1994 in "failing" to burn all the coca out of South America.

FWIW- Do you know how China, on a fairly instantaneous basis, "threw the switch" and ended the majority of opium use when the Communist regime took over? They simply had all the end users shot. However, I don't think that is an option here.

 

[max401]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Are you suggesting Bush's non action is justified on the basis of what Clinton or Ford did not do?

Is our precedent for a current president that they do or not do what other presidents have done when presented with a problem?

Note: You did not answer all the questions I put forth to you in my last post.

You know, if you would stick to a singular premise it would faciltate this discussion as well others you get involved in. To answer this set of questions above, a quite obvious "no."

 

[ARogueTrader]

Now you are judging how I have discussions with others?

Is it not enough to just voice your opinion about this particular exchange?

Quote from max401:

You know, if you would stick to a singular premise it would faciltate this discussion as well others you get involved in. To answer this set of questions above, a quite obvious "no."

 

[max401]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

[1] Now you are judging how I have discussions with others?

[2] Is it not enough to just voice your opinion about this particular exchange?

[1] A simple observation and a suggestion.

[2]Apparently not, but I see you are forming yet another premise to argue.

 

[ARogueTrader]

[1] A simple observation and a suggestion.

An observation that was irrelevant to the topic.

I could equally suggest that you pull your head out of your ass.

It would be of equal value to your suggestion, as neither suggestion focuses on the issue and ideas of the thread, but rather on the methodology and personality.

Our resident Jr. logical fallacy instructor could no doubt label it as a poison the well fallacy.

[2]Apparently not, but I see you are forming yet another premise to argue.

No premise needed. Just a simple observation and a question.

 

[max401]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

It would be of equal value to your suggestion, as neither suggestion focuses on the issue and ideas of the thread, but rather on the methodology and personality.

Your method of argument is to attempt to paint the opposing side into a corner by asking pointed and loaded questions. It's not working, sorry.