Posted on 10/01/2004 4:11:11 PM PDT by Nice50BMG
"I posted this immediately after kerry said it last night but the moderator pulled the thread. i guess they had a kerry supporter moderating fr last night."
Yes, it sounds as if you/we deserve an explanation. Why was the thread pulled? Maybe it just sounded too insane to be true?
Kerry... cut the strategic defense... end our weapons programs and give Iran nuke material, get China out of the North Korean talks...
His Foreign Policy is the receipe for the end of the United States....
I have this funny feeling that if Kerry is elected he would allow North Korea to keep any nuclear weapons that they have yet he would probably run over his own mother before he allows our armed forces to develope new weapons systems.
Thats your typical Carter/Clinton policy of "please dont hit me....i'll give you grain for 35 years."
It kinda' makes one wonder what his "big picture" agenda is, doesn't it?
If I were in his shoes (and thank God I'm not) I would repress my agenda as to how I would handle things too!
After all he professes a better direction than we are in now if he were POTUS, but says nothing as to what that direction is less small tidbit's that show a disdain for our national sovereignty.
It's not that the mod is a kerry supporter.
When all 250,000 of us regulars are on at the same time, it's probably easier on the system to keep new threads to a minimum.
I don't begrudge them that.
Has the President referred to this since the debates? A brief scan of Google news suggests that nobody but us is shocked by what Kerry said.
This wasn't the only scary comment Kerry made.
There was one other point in this debate in which Kerry allowed his true colors to show through and I am surprised that few have picked up on it. When discussing the dangers of nuclear proliferation Kerry noted that we are spending money on a nuclear tipped bunker busting bomb and it was wrong for us to build such a weapon while telling N. Korea not to build any nukes. This statement literally sent a chill down my spine and for the first time I really realized how dangerous it would be to have Kerry in power at this point in our history.
First of all, this statement reminds us of Kerry's "blame America first" mentality. He wants us to believe that there is a moral equivalency between a sociopathic dictator that has starved or killed millions and sells WMDs to terrorist regimes and the United States which has worked tirelessly to end proliferation of nuclear weapons and has fought to prevent the loss of life all over the world. If Kerry had been just a little less scripted I have no doubt the next thing out of his mouth would have been to remind us that the US is the only country on earth to ever use a nuclear weapon. This is how the blame America first crowd thinks and no doubt Kerry thinks this way too.
Developing such a weapon lets our enemies know that even if they decide to develop WMDs underground they are not out of our reach. Just the knowledge that such a weapon exists may stop rogue nations from even trying but Kerry doesn't seem to get this. He seems to think that if we stop building weapons the insane dictators of the world will see this and decide to just give up all their weapons as well. No matter how hard he tries his weak-kneed appeasement minded approach to the world shows through. The logical extension to Kerry's argument is that if we have nuclear weapons we have no right to question any other country if they choose to have nuclear weapons. This is not only dangerous but it reveals a real inability to accept that this nation is a force for good in the world while many other nations are quite the opposite.
Watching this part of the debate I had a flashback to the cold war. Bush stood as the reincarnation of Reagan with his unyielding stance and Kerry, well Kerry stood as a
reincarnation of John Kerry who fought for unilateral disarmament when Reagan was winning the cold war through our strength.
The amazing thing to me is that this point was made during a discussion of the dangers of nuclear proliferation. When asked Kerry immediately responded that this is the biggest risk to our country yet he followed up with a plan to weaken our hand. Until this point I was simply pro-Bush because I think he has done and excellent job in the face of unprecedented criticism. Now I am also anti-Kerry as his approach to the world has not changed since he was wrong after returning from Vietnam, his approach didn't change after he was wrong about confronting the USSR and it is now clear that his approach to the world is still dangerously naive.
It may be Satanic.
It would seem they are hung up on the Israeli agression of 1967 when Israel attacked Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq.
They seem to forget that this was pre-emptive self-defense due to the order of Nasser (Egypt) for the UN to leave.
They seem to think that Israel will lash out if given the chance.
"When discussing the dangers of nuclear proliferation Kerry noted that we are spending money on a nuclear tipped bunker busting bomb and it was wrong for us to build such a weapon while telling N. Korea not to build any nukes. This statement literally sent a chill down my spine and for the first time I really realized how dangerous it would be to have Kerry in power at this point in our history. "
Amen....his comment about scrapping the nuclear tipped bunker buster if he were Pres. shouted out at me last night as SO WRONG. I guess if Iran or N. Korea or a rogue terrorist threatens us with their nuclear weapon, we will just defend ourselves with a "spitball". No wonder he said last night that he would reserve the right for preemption (unlike at the DNC convention when he said he will "respond" to any and all attacks). I guess he figures "spitballs" will pass the global test.
It sure is and I can't believe the media did not get all over this last night? Am I missing something? Why did Bush fall asleep on this?
Well, I,m annoyed with the MSM not picking this up. So, I emailed all the cable news with Kerry's quote. See if we get a response.
What an idiot! Kerry is not qualified.
I would view the relationship between modern liberalism and reality as having certain parallels to that between geocentrism and reality.
The geocentrists had a view of the universe which mostly "worked". No matter that many parts of it defied Occam's Razor; to a geocentrist everything somehow made "sense".
Since I'm no longer a liberal, I can no longer figure out quite how certain absurd things which "made sense" could possibly have done so, but I do still have something of a sense. I think one of the key elements, which Bush may be wise to, is that a liberal mind can defy the existence of anything or anyone which does not fit the world view, except for those things which it has already too-firmly embraced.
Liberals know that, in their world view, Bush is even and anything he says which conflicts with their world view is nothing but hateful propaganda. And anything Bush says about Kerry's faults will banish those faults from liberals' minds. Kerry could advocate the slaughter of every firstborn child and, if Bush criticized him for it, liberals would immediately cease to see that as being a bad thing.
The key to freeing liberals from their world view is to let them get themselves into a situation where, while trying to reconcile its inconsistencies, they find themselves stuck. If they're trying to defend their worldview when they get caught by its insistencies, they'll simply banish the attack from their existence. But if key aspects of the world view collide, and both are important enough that neither can simply be banished, then liberals are more likely to seek help to reconcile conflicting aspects of their world view. And once part of their world view starts collapsing, the rest will follow like dominos.
I'll confess that I've not been very effective at giving sight to liberals. I think one of my problems is that even though I recognize what needs to be done, I sometimes 'pounce' too soon before the liberal beast has started to collapse, and in so doing rearouse its defenses. But I do think Bush may well be on the right track.
Methinks Bush may be wanting to give Kerry lots of rope.
yeah...
semicide doctrine for islamist states:
nuke 'em, pave 'em, pump 'em, problem solved.
Wait a moment. Environmentalists constantly oppose the use of nuclear energy in the states, while conservatives ensure the people they are safe and can't be used to make weapons.
Where is the truth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.