Re: Jim Thompson is a cowardly diletante

From: John S. Dyson (toor_at_iquest.net)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 02:34:14 +0000 (UTC)

In article <f0jdo0hpko4r5eaotmkf6khtovgkimuv74@4ax.com>,
        Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> writes:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:54:13 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
>
>>Remember, George W. Bush is a dangerous liar and mass murderer.
>
> So is Tony Blair. It didn't stop *him* being elected. :-(
> There was a programme on C4 tonight that claimed that the American
> electorate is remarkably poorly-informed. I think the inference was
> that they will put Bush back in power!
>
The 'interesting' thing is that I collect information from almost
all of the sources that are commonly (and not-so-commonly) available
(e.g. both public and retail news sources.) As I become more and
more informed, it becomes more and more obvious that Kerry is a
worse choice than Bush.

        (Note that my so called well informed European friends didnt'
        know that Kerry and his team had been implying that France
        and Germany would come to our 'rescue' in Iraq, while France
        at least had claimed -- NO WAY. There is alot of truthful
        information about Kerry and his bona-fide and important
        flaws that just do not get spread into much of the European
        press, yet almost every Bush mistake gets amplified.)

 The problem with the Bush vs. Kerry race
is that Bush is flawed (and probably more flawed than most previous
presidents), but Kerry is by far even worse yet -- Kerry is more
flawed in more important ways. From the French
European standpoint, Kerry is a better choice, but not from
the standpoint of defense and support of America. THE PRESIDENTs
MOST IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS EFFECTIVELY TO PROTECT THE NATION.
THE PRESIDENT DOESN"T HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO PROVIDE JOBS,
HEALTHCARE, HDTV, or even make any decisions wrt SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
The president might have SOME indirect influence about certain issues
that are overly championed at the presidential level by the Kerry-types,
but the president has essentially DIRECT AUTHORITY OVER MANY MECHANISMS
THAT DIRECTLY PROTECT THE AMERICAN NATION.

(A moderately weakened America is in the interest of the ongoing
imperialistic French mentality -- whose imperialism is much more
intense than America's imperialism, but America has more actual
wherewithall. In essense, America can truly and effectively be
imperialistic, and tries to avoid it, while France wants to be a
'big boy' imperialist, but just cannot because France just isn't a grown up.)

With Bush, we have someone who is flawed yet qualified to be
president (in the sense of the willpower and staying power to
fight and defeat the enemies of America.) With Kerry, we would
have someone who would / does waffle, and he has shown little
or no ability to 'stay the course'. In almost all cases, Kerry
has also chosen to vote against many of our most useful and
successful military systems. In the Kerry world, we'd be yet
another 2nd rate power like France (all show, no substance, but
not really much 'show' either :-)).

Without being biased at all, Kerry would definitely be the first
choice for Al Queda, France, North Korea and perhaps even China.
Kerry should be proud of those credentials, even if Bush is my
own first choice (in my case, I am not limited to NYT type sources,
but actually have access to pay information services, e.g. one
service is known as a commercially funded CIA.)

The biggest problem that I see WRT most presidential elections is
to attribute general domestic economic health to the president, and
unless the president has done some kind of large scale action (or
a major bill), then he has little control. The president might
have some "jawboning" influence, but little/no control. For example,
if Clinton is responsible for the booming economy in the 1998 through
2000 timeframe, then he is also responsible for the bubble that
started bursting before Bush was even nominated. If anything, Clinton
would be guilty of inaction so that the bubble could have been better
managed. (The techboom wasn't due to Clinton -- but the screwed
up bust handed to Bush was either due to Clinton or not. If Clinton
didn't screw up the Bust, then he certainly didn't create the tech
boom!!!)

John

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gas prices rises 10 cents a gallon over 2 weeks
    ... The campaign promises were to end the war in Iraq and impeach Bush. ... Why did prices rise under six years of a Republican President, ... rules would have shut down every home business in America. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • The ECONOMIST: Sep 11
    ... President if he keeps this up and China would have a clear path to ... As it turned out Bush is indeed a small man in a very big office, ... The damage he has done to America will be the ... At the same time September 11th strengthened the Republicans while ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Bush: Americans Dont Lack Will to Win
    ... Bush: Americans Don't Lack Will to Win ... President Bush changed course Saturday and said America's enemies ... The appeasers and fearful in America and around the ... everything in their power to undermine any war effort. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Will Obama win Iowa ?
    ... If he claims that Bush lied to him -- and caused him ... point -- the point is that politics is a full body contact sport played ... Kerry in the incident the Swiftboaters were focussing ... team supporting a dodging president that is throwing mud ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • BUSH IS A LYING SCUMBAG
    ... Our President is a Lying Scumbag ... on our troops in Iraq," said Bush. ... to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong. ... Then we have Senator John Kerry discovering the painful lesson many ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
Quantcast