posted
What's that supposed to mean? Why is being a liberal senator considered a bad enough thing to be used as a barb against Kerry? I just don't understand it.. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because he's trying to get the undecided vote. Undecided means they don't want someone really really liberal anymore than they want someone really really conservative.
Heck, I'm a moderate democrat and I definatly wouldn't be too happy about "the most liberal senator" as the canidate.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do they keep throwing around the word liberal like it's the worse curse word in the world? And it's not just in this election, it's something I heard ages ago. I really don't understand it... Speaking of just... some Hollywood legion or something, when it really isn't like that...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because radical liberalism doesn't represent America very well regardless of whether or not you think it should.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because "liberal" has become a tainted word by propoganda artists. Throw enough tar on it, and it will falter by the wayside, such as "communist" has.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because radical liberalism doesn't represent America very well regardless of whether or not you think it should.
It is radical conservatism that represents America perfectly, regardless of wether you think it does or not.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I find ironic about this is, as far as I can tell, whether one is ranked as "liberal" or a "conservative" is based solely on whether you voted for Democratic or Republican proposed or supported bills. What they are really saying is that John Kerry votes for many bills that many other Democrats vote for and many Republicans vote against and votes against bills that many Republicans vote for and many Democrats vote against.
Voting for a bill to make "Democrats rule! Republicans drool!" the new National motto is going to label you as a liberal. That's just silly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is radical conservatism that represents America perfectly, regardless of wether you think it does or not.
That is a moranic statement.
The problem is that we are so diverse that no single viewpoint represents "us", because we can't decide on who "us" means....is it all Americans, or just the rich ones? All races, religions and creeds...or just the major ones?
Simplistic statements (on either side) create more problems than they claim to solve, and belittle the issues we care enough about to discuss.
I don't think that radical views on either side represent America...the problem is that we aren't all on the same page about a lot of issues...sometimes we can't even decide on what the issues should be.
quote:Why do they keep throwing around the word liberal like it's the worse curse word in the world? And it's not just in this election, it's something I heard ages ago. I really don't understand it... Speaking of just... some Hollywood legion or something, when it really isn't like that...
For the same reason people throw around "conservative" as a curse word. Or label anyone who speaks up about certain issues as a member of the "Christian Right."
posted
Hm. I would argue that neither "conservative" nor "Religious Right" have been vilified and perverted as extensively as the word "liberal," although the process has certainly begun.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would vociferously disagree, Tom, and I think that each of us has had our take on this colored by which "side" we happen to find ourselves on.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Liberal in my view is anyone who espouses views when polls show that the majority of Americans are against it.
If 60, 70, 80, 90% of Americans believe something to be wrong, but you believe it to be right, you're a radical and can be either liberal or conservative.
posted
On Iraq, when he believes it was the right thing to do even though a majority of Americans do not.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't fit with any normal usage of the word, though. It would mean the Religious Right are Liberal extremists. It would mean Powell is the least Liberal of the President's main advisors. And it would make Kerry not very Liberal at all in his stances on Iraq, welfare, health care, etc.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: On Iraq, when he believes it was the right thing to do even though a majority of Americans do not.
I suggest you do a google of poll numbers before the war began.
That is absolutely false.
Here is ONE example:
quote:
Saturday, April 5, 2003
Poll: Majority of U.S. Backs War in Iraq
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOS ANGELES -- A majority of Americans back the war in Iraq and half reported they would support military action against Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, according to a Los Angeles Times poll released Sunday.
More than 75 percent of 745 adults surveyed said they support the war in Iraq.
But 50 percent said the United Nations, not the United States, should lead the reconstruction effort there.
The vast majority of those who support the war said they will continue to back military intervention, even if allied forces find no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
Bush's job approval rating reached 68 percent, the highest level since last summer, according to the poll.
The media's handling of war coverage received a 61 percent approval rate.
Just over half of those interviewed said they believed U.S. military action in Iraq will help stabilize the Middle East, and 62 percent said it would make the world a safer place.
Nearly a quarter of those who support military intervention in Iraq said the action was justified because of the need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Of those who opposed the war with Iraq, 18 percent said they believed Bush was leading military action "for personal/political reasons". Nearly as many said the United States "has no business attacking Iraq."
The telephone poll, with an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points, was conducted Wednesday and Thursday.
posted
Yes, and yes, and about religious involvement in politics in general. The majority does not agree with them.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
a much more recent poll (June 2004) states that 54% of Americans believe sending troops to iraq was a mistake. and 55% believe that the war has not made america any safer.
posted
Good work Chad. You're now posting links and evidence to back up your claims. Good job.
Also a simple google search:
quote: LOS ANGELES - A majority of American registered voters polled from across the nation now say conditions in Iraq did not merit war, but most are reluctant to abandon efforts there, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll.
advertisement
Voters are increasingly concerned that Iraq is a quagmire America cannot escape, and they are doubtful that a democratic government will be established there, according to the poll published in Friday editions of the Times.
Fifty-three percent of respondents said the situation in Iraq did not merit war, while 43 percent said war was justified. When the same question was asked for Times polls in March and November, the numbers were precisely reversed.
This was a poll in 6/11/2004. The numbers may have changed since the new WMD report came out.
I think it is fair to say that a majority of Americans supported the war when Bush told us that Iraq had WMDs and that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. But with new evidence disproving Bush's claims, I think Americans have shifted positions.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's some more bad poll news from before the War's initiation:
quote: Pre-Iraq War Poll Archives
CNN Poll (4/7) On who should run Iraq in short-term
Who should run Iraq in the short-term after the war? The United States 55% 6087 votes The United Nations 45% 4996 votes Total: 11,083 votes
This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.
Awwwww...to bad. Most people believed the US should run Iraq, not the UN.
quote:66 Percent Fund Secretary of State Colin Powell Very or Fairly Convincing in his U.N. Presentation (2/7/03)
TIM RUSSERT, NBC’s Washington bureau chief, said the bumps were “largely” due to the president’s State of the Union speech last month and to Powell’s presentation on Wednesday, which many observers felt offered strong evidence for action against Iraq.
Below is a summary of the survey of 514 adults: Bush ratings: 61 percent approved, 31 percent disapproved. Last month, the ratio was 54 to 40. Bush’s high was 81 percent in November 2001. Military action against Iraq: 60 percent felt it should happen, 27 were against it. That compares with 56 and 36 percent in January. The 27 percent mark was the smallest percentage since the question was asked in polls dating back to April 2002.
See, Kerry doesn't want what most Americans wanted.
He wanted what all the NON-Americans wanted.
I want an American President in word and deed.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it is fair to say that a majority of Americans supported the war when Bush told us that Iraq had WMDs and that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. But with new evidence disproving Bush's claims, I think Americans have shifted positions.
quote: No matter how you count the votes, Bush did not win the popular vote in the 2000 election.
And that has....what to do with Kerry being the Most Liberal Senator (I actually think it's DUI Killer Kennedy, but opinions vary).
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, I believe Kerry's position is that he would not have gotten us into the war, but that we have to finish what we've started now that Bush screwed it up.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Bush's stated position is that he would do everything the same in regards to invading Iraq if he had to do it all over again.
Are you suggesting that he is lying - that he really believes he made a mistake in going to war, and that he's just pretending to think it was right? Because unless that is true, he disagrees with the majority of Americans on the issue.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:President Bush believed it was the right war, at the right time at the right place.
75% of those polled in Liberal LA agreed.
LA Times conducts both statewide polls as well as national polls. Usually when their polls talk about "Americans," their survey sampled a national audience. LA Times does not poll people in Los Angeles exclusively unless it is an LA-based issue.
The poll I posted, which was an update of your poll, was listed in LA Times' National Polls section. The article also quoted people from Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Wisconsin.
If you can show that the LA Times poll you linked to polled only people living in "Liberl LA," please provide some evidence.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will agree that for the sake of our troops, the Middle East, and the Iraqi's Bush does stand firm on the War in Iraq even though the majority of Americans believe the Liberal Media Spin on what is happening over there (which is night and day different from what is actually happening over there per the troops on the ground).
So, yes, I agree that Bush is at odds with the American people on the War being justified.
But then again, we only see the negative in Iraq through the media.
Nightline shows the names of those who died in Iraq, but it doesn't show how the soldiers are living and succeeding over there.
What message does that send? That soldiers are only dying over there, which is a half truth because soldiers are also living, suceeding.
Forgive me for not believing the media's negative spin because I'm smarter than that.
Kerry does though. It's his source for everything on Iraq.
The media paints a "mess" in Iraq, so Kerry adopts that as his official stance although the fatallities are lower than any invasion of any country in the history of warfare for that period of time.
Soldiers die in battle. 58,000 died in vietnam. In Iraq we turned the country over to the Iraqi Governing Council in June with less than 1,000 US deaths. If President Bush is elected, Iraqi elections will be held in January almost 2 years later with just a little over 1,000+ deaths.
That is a successful war.
Kerry a vietnam vet claiming it's a mess, is Ironic and False and he should know better. That he doesn't, means he is either stupid or intentionally lying.
I support the troops AND the mission and it's goals.
This was the right war, at the right time in the right country.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, again you're arguing from your conclusion. You start with the assumption that it's a successful war, and base your arguments on that premise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends entirely on how you're going to define "successful," Chad. You appear to be using "successful" in a manner that suggests a superlative, particularly since you're using the word to justify the suppression of dissent. Is this how you mean to apply it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
