The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, January 02, 2006

John Kerry still does not get it

There is an interesting news article in Newsmax about how John Kerry seems to be still in campaign mode; the theory being he has his eyes on 2008. John Kerry does not get it if he does not realize that he is a "has been" with little to zero chance of winning the nomination for '08. Even some liberals had to see what a dried out husk with no solid principles that he is. In defense of his actions:
' "He's continuing the fight he began in 2004," said Kerry spokesman David Wade. "He wants to make it very clear he's a fighter who is going to continue to fight for his agenda." '
What agenda? Liberals continue to claim they have an agenda, yet I think you would be hard pressed in finding anyone that could (or would) articulate it. Somehow they think that stating "We are for adding jobs" is an agenda item. No, that is a wish; not an agenda. An agenda item would be something like "We plan to create an environment that will stimulate job growth by lowering taxes and reducing government mandates on businesses".

posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 4:01 PM  

13 Comments:

  • At 10:17 PM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    John Kerry is so clueless, he thinks asphalt is a butt disease.

    Speaking of adding jobs, growing businesses, and that kind of stuff, I have been reading the Fair Tax book by Boortz and Linder. Stay tuned. I will produce and file a complete report, when finished.

     

  • At 2:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    'Democrats have no agenda.'

    Yawn. It's amazing that you people don't get tired of saying the same thing over and over and over again.

    Party agendas, Republican, Democrat or otherwise are never anything more than wish lists and you know it. You just play ignorant of that so you can take cheap shots at those you disagree with, as if that somehow proves your point. Are you even making a point? If so, it's not obvious.

    Instead, you gladly accept and continue to uncritically support those who've handed us spiraling deficits and debt, K Street corruption, human torture, Soviet-style domestic surveillance, 2200 and counting dead American troops, horse-show managers to run FEMA, more Soviet-style laws that allow American citizens to be held indefintely without being charged, and on and on.

    Congratulations.

     

  • At 4:35 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    KV, thanks for stopping by. I think by your comments that you have not read much of my blog. In the long list, I have spoken on all but the Abramoff Dem & GOP scandal. There is not enough known info to comment on yet.

    I have been critical of Bush and the GOP where they deserve it: mostly in Democrat like spending. I was politically observant during the 80's when Democrats controlled Congress and caused huge defecit spending. Dems think we are stupid enough to not recognize that Clinton's surplus was founded on the dot.com boom and some measure of restraint when the GOP first took over the house; having nothing to do with any of his policies.

    Concerning agendas, there are written fluffy agendas by each party. I am talking about an agenda that one clearly communicates. There has never been a doubt where Bush stands and what he wants to accomplish. With Kerry, nobody could say with certainty what his real agenda was other than becoming president.

     

  • At 6:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I have been critical of Bush and the GOP where they deserve it: mostly in Democrat like spending"

    I can't really find that anywhere on your blog but will look if you show me. But if you think that is the only area they deserve criticism, I must feel sorry for you. Bush and the current GOP are a reckless, dangerous bunch who have been shredding the Constitution and flushing this country down the toilet since day one. They are neither compassionate nor conservative. You praise Alito as a conservative Constitutionalist but have no words of critique on Bush and Co's steady dismantling of the freedoms and institutions that make this country great.

    I've scanned a fair chunk of your blog, and conclude that you're OK with the spiraling deficits and debt, K Street corruption, human torture, Soviet-style domestic surveillance, 2200 and counting dead American troops, horse-show managers to run FEMA, more Soviet-style laws that allow American citizens to be held indefintely without being charged, and on and on. Like your GOP brethren, you think all is well until you're caught, and even then I'm sure you'll want to call foul or witch-hunt or the like. I see you hone close to the RNC talking points trying to link Dems to the Abramoff scandal, despite no evidence of Dems getting any money from him or directed to them by him. So much for "not enough known to comment on."

    Your heroes and "information" resources are unabashedly partisan and notoriously fallacious and unreliable (Malkin, Newsmax, FOX, Powerline and similar) while endlessly bemoaning the Associated Press. You deride mainstream media (NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC) as liberal despite being corporate entities whose primary motive is sales and status quo. The "liberal media" gave Bush a free red carpet ride into Iraq. Were you saying they were so liberal then? Not likely. TIME is so liberal it scrubbed Bush 39/Scrowcroft article from it's site about why he didn't invade Iraq, right? Calling them liberal is truly laughable. Call the Nation and Mother Jones liberal. At least then you'd be accurate.

    Clinton was a pro-business corporatist. He also had an agenda to balance the budget. He did. You may have felt "observant" during the 80s, but to say Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the balanced budget, thriving economy and budget surplus is just a flat out lie and sad attempt to re-write history. Sorry you feel bad about that, but that's your own sour grapes that your boys have screwed things up so badly these days. No, all our woes are not Bush's fault, but he and his people have done much to really mess things up. One can hope irreparable damage has not been done. I actually think he's kept quite out of the loop much of the time. He is not a smart man, and definitely not one who could be said to "communicate clearly." Heaven help us when he tries to speak off-script or to a group of people that have not been hand-picked to be his audience. But he has very smart and very vicious people around him. It's terrible these people call themselves Christians. Their acts are miles away from anything Christian I know.

    I agree with you about Kerry though. There were some good positions articulated, and I believe he would be a far more responsible Commander in Chief having actually been in and commanded troops in combat, but he was a mess. The DLC still has too much sway over the Democratic Party. They've been losing elections for a long time now, trying so desperately to out-GOP the GOP. Not a recipe for winning.

     

  • At 9:26 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "I can't really find that anywhere on your blog but will look if you show me."

    My mistake, you are correct. I have not been critical on this blog to the level I thought I was. I have posted elsewhere and been critical and admitted mistakes, etc. There may also be buried comment threads I have also made criticism here but I won't waste time digging through them. For the record Bush is too soft on immigration, has allowed too much spending, tried to kow-tow to liberals in the education and senior prescription bills, made a bad nomination in Brown for FEMA director (even though he was confirmed 100% by the senate). Bush is a poor communicator, has made an occassional really stupid statement, tries too much to reach across the aisle, and should not have compromised on the tax cut by making it temporary and only half of what he wanted. Bush does not defend himself or his policies like he needs to leaving that to others. So, yes I can be critical of Bush when I need to be. The bottom line is that there are so many blogs devoted to criticizing him, there is no need for me to repeat it.

    "I've scanned a fair chunk of your blog, and conclude that you're OK with the spiraling deficits and debt, K Street corruption, human torture, Soviet-style domestic surveillance, 2200 and counting dead American troops, horse-show managers to run FEMA, more Soviet-style laws that allow American citizens to be held indefintely without being charged, and on and on."

    As I said above, I have a problem with the defecit spending. However, anyone would have to be on crack to believe the Dems would be spending less. Even while Kerry was criticizing the deficit during his campaign, he was promising things that would have made it even bigger.

    K street corruption - some new liberal buzz word I won't bother looking up. If you are trying to claim that the GOP is corrupt and the Dems are pure as the driven snow, I have nothing but laughter to answer such a pathethic belief.

    Human torture - my position is clear on this. Terrorists not in uniform are not legally protected by the Geneva convention. Torture to save a large number of American lives is acceptable. To accept massive death to refrain from torturing those who would blow up innocent civilians is foolish.

    2200 American dead - I regret that in protecting our country and in the promotion of freedom that it costs lives. While every life is sacred, I am very happy we have had the military strength to have kept our losses so low.

    "horse-show managers to run FEMA"
    As noted above, a stupid choice. The GOP and Dems should be ashamed of themselves for confirming him in the Senate in a 100% vote.

    ' Your heroes and "information" resources are unabashedly partisan and notoriously fallacious and unreliable '
    Merely saying they are unreliable does not make it so. Please send what examples you might be able to scrape together. Good luck. By the way, just because you disagree with it does not make it unreliable. Please send reliable proof along with it. Again, good luck.

    Also, to claim that there is not a liberal media is truly the laughable statement. They may have moments and stories at times that do not reflect it, but overall there is no question. To point to the pre-Iraq coverage as proof of conservatism is ridiculous, though. With multiple governments, multiple administrations across both parties in the US, and the United Nations all in agreement that Saddam had WMD, it is hardly a 'conservative' position. It is merely stating what was felt to be fact.

    "Clinton was a pro-business corporatist. He also had an agenda to balance the budget. He did. You may have felt "observant" during the 80s, but to say Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the balanced budget, thriving economy and budget surplus is just a flat out lie and sad attempt to re-write history."

    Uh, pretty laughable. I noticed you failed to name his policies that actually accomplished this. Please don't mix with GOP controlled Congress policies and those Clinton policies actually suppressed by said Congress.

    "that's your own sour grapes"

    I can assure you I have no sour grapes. The Clinton years provided hours of entertainment as do the antics of the Dems now. While I prefer GOP victory, I can live with a victory of Dems to remind us why we should not keep them.

    Keep coming back

     

  • At 7:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You obviously have no respect for facts, so any debate or argument with you is pointless, but here is some of the information you seem to be missing.

    The K Street Project which has led to the current K Street corruption (Abramoff, Scanlon, et al) was started in 1995 by Grover Norquist and Tom DeLay to pressure Washington lobbying firms (located on K Street in DC) to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. Dems are not pure as driven snow, so don't tire yourself pursuing that.

    Brown wasn't nominated to head FEMA. He was nominated to the deputy director position under Joe Allbaugh. It was a lazy confirmation hearing and voice vote in the Senate. Brown was automatically shuffled into the leadership position without further nomination, hearings or votes when Allbaugh left and Homeland Security swallowed FEMA. In essence, Brown was never elected to run FEMA in the first place.

    "Human torture - my position is clear on this. Terrorists not in uniform are not legally protected by the Geneva convention. Torture to save a large number of American lives is acceptable. To accept massive death to refrain from torturing those who would blow up innocent civilians is foolish."

    Aside from midlessly parroting a lame O'Reilly talking point, I had assumed you were a Christian, but I see I am mistaken. The position you stake is pretty shaky too, considering that the overwhelming majority of detainees in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere have been found to be innocent so far. Your comment borders on overt racism. You see no problem in torturing these detainees, though the only thing they are known to be guilty of is being Arab. Pretty disgusting.

    "2200 American dead - I regret that in protecting our country and in the promotion of freedom that it costs lives. While every life is sacred, I am very happy we have had the military strength to have kept our losses so low."

    Our troops in Iraq are not protecting our country and never have been. If anything, their presence has put our country in further danger, and there's plenty of US military folks who have said as much. That recent Pentagon study on the fatalities from inadequate armor is damning. It is an outrage and disgrace they sent our troops off without proper armor. That alone is criminal negligence. Be glad you don't have a kid over there. And "promoting freedom?" You've got to be kidding. Let's bomb them into democracy! How about we stop shredding our Constitution first before we trot off around the world to kill innocent civilians into liberty.

    Have a whole lot of information - probably more than you can handle - about your "liberal media bias" and your "reliable" sources:
    Malkin
    NewsMax
    and FOX just for starters. There's plenty there to keep you busy. It all links directly to original source material. Have fun.

    Perhaps I will add more later.

     

  • At 10:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Bush is too soft on immigration, has allowed too much spending, tried to kow-tow to liberals in the education and senior prescription bills......"

    Gosh. Cry me a river of selfish pain. To hell with kids and seniors. Your level of disregard for your fellow American is shocking. Bush provided for a measley 8.4 cents on the dollar of the cost of primary and secondary schools. Congress appropriated a half penny of the nation's income - a mere one-half of one-percent of America's 12 trillion dollar Gross Domestic Product - for primary and secondary education spending.

    President Bush actually requested less than that. While Congress may have succeeded in getting a paltry increase in voted funding, that doesn't mean the extra money ever gets to the students. 15 states have sued the government on the grounds that the cost of new testing imposed on schools - $3.9 billion - eats up the entirety of the new funding budgeted for No Child Left Behind. This has been an underfunded mandate since its inception.

    "With multiple governments, multiple administrations across both parties in the US, and the United Nations all in agreement that Saddam had WMD, it is hardly a 'conservative' position. It is merely stating what was felt to be fact."

    Again, you must not get any real news to feel assured of saying this. Sure, Clinton said WMDs back in the 90s, but trying to spread that BS onto an administration that had been out of the White House for 3 years is just desperation. I guess you missed the part about the UN not buying the WMD thing, which is why Bush blew them off and staged a unilateral invasion of a non-aggressor country, against the will of the Security Council. You also missed news that intelligence analysts were ignored by the White House.

    Either you missed all of this and are uninformed, or you are a brazen liar.

     

  • At 12:17 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "You obviously have no respect for facts, so any debate or argument with you is pointless"

    Very lame. Please save the general statements and point to some specifics. You must be related to an anonymous dude that posts here from time to time. General statements. Links to whole long articles to "prove" points instead of dialogue point by point.

    "Dems are not pure as driven snow"
    Good, you are not a kool-aid drinker. Neither am I. I just wait for the proof to come in before I will concede wrong-doing. So far there are allegations around Tom Delay, but other than association I have seen no proof of guilt. He may be guilty of sin, but Earle is sitting pretty tightly on anything that would prove it.

    "Brown wasn't nominated to head FEMA. He was nominated to the deputy director position under Joe Allbaugh."
    Head or deputy, he was nominated with 100%. To try and make confirmation of a "deputy" position to such an important task an unaccountable issue does not fly.

    "Aside from midlessly parroting a lame O'Reilly talking point"
    Sorry, but I watch O'Reilly about 3 times a year. I never heard him discuss the subject. Nice try. I often wonder why you libs hate O'Reilly so much. He is not a conservative.

    "That recent Pentagon study on the fatalities from inadequate armor is damning."

    Sorry, you saw that the story dropped like a hot potato. The NYT tried to sting Bush yet again with a false spin of the facts. The story avoids the fact that there is sufficient armor, but many soldiers feel that using full armor costs them mobility that they say puts them in danger. In other words, this story was half baked and went off half cocked before they were able to determine what the truth really is.


    "Sure, Clinton said WMDs back in the 90s, but trying to spread that BS onto an administration that had been out of the White House for 3 years is just desperation."

    Sorry, time does not wipe away that Clinton made the same arguments that Bush did. I see your link is from CBS News. What is their source for this? Forged documents? Sorry, CBS, NYT, LA Times and AP have all shown themselves partisan and lacking credibility and objectivity.

    "I had assumed you were a Christian, but I see I am mistaken."
    Were you trying to make a point here? It came to an abrupt end. I guess is was something you just felt like saying.

    "Gosh. Cry me a river of selfish pain. To hell with kids and seniors. Your level of disregard for your fellow American is shocking."
    What do kids and seniors have to do with my comments. As for disregard of my fellow American, you don't know jack about me or what I do for my fellow American. You seem to throw that out pretty quickly without basis.

    You then go on about education. Are you seriously implying that education is underfunded in this country???? What a joke. You probably think throwing more money at a problem will solve it. I have funded the public school system with my taxes, yet never taken advantage of it as my kids are privately educated - so I get to pay twice.

    "Congress appropriated a half penny of the nation's income - a mere one-half of one-percent of America's 12 trillion dollar Gross Domestic Product - for primary and secondary education spending."

    I don't care what portion of the GDP we are spending. The question is not about %, it is what does it take to educate our kids. We are spending more than enough to educate our kids. The problem is the teachers union. Get rid of them and the NEA and most of our education problems will be solved.

     

  • At 11:10 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "The position you stake is pretty shaky too, considering that the overwhelming majority of detainees in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere have been found to be innocent so far."

    innocent of what? who found them innocent? some have been let go and later captured fighting for the insurgency.

     

  • At 5:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "CBS, NYT, LA Times and AP have all shown themselves partisan and lacking credibility and objectivity."

    I notice you offer no non-partisan, credible, objective news sources in response.

    This is the perfect example of your lack of respect for facts, and why arguing or discussing anything with you is an exercise in futility. You only have to be able to read to look at quotes from sources within news articles to determine sources. You don't seem to be, so why are you playing stupid? My guess is you're playing stupid because your position is indefensible in the real world. You certainly offer no defense of your positions. You demand point-by-point arguments because you are unable to engage in debate of wide-scope issues. Your rant also displays a textbook case of paranoia; the inability to trust anything and suspect that something is out to get you (or here, to get your point of view). I'm surprised you didn't lump the BBC, CBC, NBC, ABC and every other legitimate news agency into your screed. You piss and moan about general statements, yet this comment of yours is exactly a general statement.

    You are so assured that Brown was confirmed with a 100% vote. Please provide your source.

    "Sorry, you saw that the [Pentagon armor] story dropped like a hot potato."

    Again, a perfect example of your lack of respect for facts. I see that it's a difficulty for you to read, but this Washington Post article from today shows the issue has definitely not dropped like a hot potato. Why do you hate America so much? That's a Pentagon report you so easily dismiss.

    " 'I had assumed you were a Christian, but I see I am mistaken.'
    Were you trying to make a point here? It came to an abrupt end. I guess is was something you just felt like saying."

    Classic. Typical. And pathetic. You remove the context of the statement so you can act "confused" by such a loaded statement. Why do you think I said that in response to your advocacy of human torture? What answer would Jesus give you?

    "Sorry, time does not wipe away that Clinton made the same arguments that Bush did."

    Really laughing now. You and your guy Bush are so out of your depth you have to try to blame the prior administration for your missteps three years after the fact. Bush should have spent more time listening to the information Clinton was trying to impart to the new Bush administration: that Osama bin Laden is a really big problem that they need to really look out for. But instead, your boy decided he needed to take more vacations than any president in history and an August 2001 PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" was totally ignored by Bush. Cue 9/11. I'm sure you give Bush a pass and blame Clinton for 9/11 too.

    After 9/11 Bush tried to intone an idea that if we stopped being Americans, that the terrorists will have won. I agreed with that idea then and I do now. That is why Bush and his supporters like you are so wrong in your pursuit of abrogating the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and everything that we as Americans fought and fight for and are supposed to hold sacred. That's why I ask:

    Why do you hate America so much?

    Why not take the time to visit the Library of Congress site (this is a direct link to the following) to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the documents and ideals that founded this great country.

     

  • At 6:50 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "I notice you offer no non-partisan, credible, objective news sources in response."

    Probably because I cannot think of any. This is what makes Fox News the best approach because they show both sides; neither side pretending to be non-bias. Such an animal does not exist in the news business.

    "I'm surprised you didn't lump the BBC, CBC, NBC, ABC and every other legitimate news agency into your screed."

    Well, I just did. The news business has become so partisan there is not one I can name as legitimate.

    "You certainly offer no defense of your positions. You demand point-by-point arguments because you are unable to engage in debate of wide-scope issues."

    Now who is the ignorant one? When a specific point is directed at me, I do my best to answer that specific point. For some reason you liberals think sending an entire link proclaiming "Oh yeah, well what about this!" is a reasonable approach. I must both read through reams of material plus read your mind to determine what portions of the material you think disprove my points. Then when I ask for specifics you all always go into fits and say I am acting stupid. Sorry, my time is extremely valuable. Yes my posts are general in nature. You will see I often base it on a news article and show snippets followed by direct commentary. Sometimes I rant as all politically passionate people do. I don't expect a rant that is not argued and supported point by point to be taken without question. That is one purpose of the comments section: to take the points you disagree with and give your points. If you want to make general statements in response you can do that, just don't be under the delusion that this mixed with a dose of name-calling proves your point.

    "Why do you think I said that in response to your advocacy of human torture? What answer would Jesus give you?"

    You are making a generic point here regarding torture and Christianity. Please provide some Biblical context that clearly states that a country is to accept massive casualties instead of exercising a self-defensive aggression against a known terrorist? Simply using the words Christian and torture in the same sentence does nothing to prove I am inconsistent in my beliefs.


    "Washington Post article"
    Thanks for proving my point. The story discusses side armor that is described as a recent upgrade. So coming up with something new and not being able to wave a magic wand and have ALL soldiers have the new upgrades is somehow an offense to be criticized. No it simply shows the liberal's desperation to find anything to be critical about. It was 3 days between stories of body armor, so it is hardly on the front burner. The story also shows how too much armor can be a liability due to slowing down on mobility. When they find that a lot of soldiers die from lack of mobility will this also be Bush's fault for providing the side armor? You folks are really sorry.

    "Why do you hate America so much?"
    Do you have turrets or something? This line keeps appearing in your posts like it is spontaneously jumping out from some primeival section of your brain. Any reader of my blog would immediately see my great love for America. And here's the winner: Are you questioning my patriotism????

    "the Geneva Convention and everything that we as Americans fought and fight"
    The Geneva Convention only protects soldiers in uniform, not thugs in civilian clothes hiding behind women's skirts. This is why it is perfectly legal under the convention to execute a spy during wartime: because they are not in uniform and lack the protection because of it.

    "You and your guy Bush are so out of your depth you have to try to blame the prior administration for your missteps three years after the fact."
    What blame? I did not blame Clinton. I am pointing to the consistency on this issue between two administrations and Democrat's inconsistency for treating Clinton and Bush differently.

    Nice try. Maybe if you add a few more insults in your next post you will feel more like you are winning the argument. Speaking of soldiers without a uniform. It is awfully easy for you to pick off other blogs when you don't have one presenting your own ideas for scrutiny. If you have one, please provide the link. If you don't, I suggest you get one to then realize how foolish some of your statements are. I would love to see you respond to a group of links with 10 pages of reading material as "proof" of their point. Then when you ask for specifics, they can tell you how you offer no defense of your positions.

     

  • At 5:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Turrets" are architectural structures. Suggesting I have "Tourette's" is likely how you meant to insult me, but unlucky for you, your ignorance got the better of you. That's why your mom always said that if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say it.

    And yes, I absolutely question the patriotism of any American who willfully advocates for the subversion of the Constitution by supporting Bush and his Soviet-like approach to the Executive.

    And again with playing stupid about armor for our troops. Remember when that grunt asked Rumsfeld about why they have to use scraps to up-armor the Hummers? How about that bill in Congress to repay families who had to purchase armor for their kids because they weren't supplied with it. It's you and this fetid administration that are sorry.

     

  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    '"Turrets" are architectural structures.'

    Oh my goodness. I have been caught in a spelling error. How will I ever cope? So you are running under cover of a spelling error instead of addressing the point that you have some spontaneous outburst problem. As if "Why do you hate America?" is some kind of logical point.

    Ok, one liberal who has no problem questioning the patiotism of others. While many liberals shamelessly side with the terrorists and whine when their patriotism is questioned. I for one am confident in my level of patriotism so having it questioned only provides me entertainment value. Feel free.

    "And again with playing stupid about armor for our troops."

    Now who is playing stupid? You are trying to mix two armor issues. Yes, there was a time when the beauracracy of the Pentagon caused a slow-down in deliveries of armor. The side-armor issue is completely separate and you can consider yourself called on being dishonest by trying to combining the two.

    Here are two quotes:
    Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson stated "...in many cases we found [the troops] didn't wear it because it was too heavy."

    Marine Sgt. Jared McNerney stated "I'm climbing walls, I'm jumping through windows...What I need most is mobility. I can barely extend my arms over my head."

    You keep insisting on taking a dishonest and skewed approach. Have you done any studies of previous wars and issues with supplies, mistakes that caused soldiers to get killed, etc. Every critique by liberals on the Iraq war is not seen through the prism of historical comparison, but through the desire to "stick it to Bush" at every chance. It does not win you credibility points.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home