Politics of Fear?

Wait a second. Kerry says Bush is going to bring back the draft without evidence, tells the elderly Bush is going to take away their Social Security, and the complaint is about Bush using fear.

I hear nothing but fear and hate from the left, and then they complain about the right. This has been the Democratic political technique for a long time now.

Okay, I just can’t resist…

You morons, both sides are using the politics of fear because it keeps working. Smarten the fuck up and start thinking for yourselves and the political parties will have to learn to reach your thoughts instead of your fears.

Okay, think about it. It’s a sad fact that political parties use what works. This means the populace is generally more effectively communicated to via lies and entertainment media. They have opted for the easy road, because it is easier than thinking.

Now that is scary!

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
One of IRAN’s chief security officers endorsed BUSH.

Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran
Tue Oct 19, 6:33 PM ET
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI,
Associated Press Writer

[/quote]

Can you show me where this guy is actually a terrorist - a watchlist, maybe some of his speeches that are antin-american/pro-terrorist?

I was wrong. I heard it somewhere (talk radio, maybe) that Zarqawi had said that he wanted Kerry to win. Since I can’t find anything to substantiate my claim - I must offer my aplogy to this forum for talking shit without a backup.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Lumpy wrote:
One of IRAN’s chief security officers endorsed BUSH.

Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran
Tue Oct 19, 6:33 PM ET
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI,
Associated Press Writer

Can you show me where this guy is actually a terrorist - a watchlist, maybe some of his speeches that are antin-american/pro-terrorist?

[/quote]

President Bush:

So let me get this straight

  1. You heard on the radio (turns out to not be the case anyway) that a terrorist said he supports Kerry, thus “terrorist group in the middle-east” supports Kerry.

  2. A high-ranking official of a government that “supports terror” (according to our President) supports Bush, but that is meaningless.

I agree with you on the second one…

Overblown rhetoric, both sides, period.

Pro X,

“I wasn’t aware that all of them had little “Made in Iraq” stickers on their asses.”

Me neither, and I didn’t claim as such, nor did Bush or any Bush supporters. Do yourself a favor and stick to facts and not wild conjecture.

“You happen to be the first who has logged in and even admitted that this is the case.”

Not exactly. I don’t think openly discussing whether or not a candidate makes your country safer is not a FEAR TACTIC at all - I think it is the most important topic to discuss, and it shouldn’t be cloaked in politically correct sugarcoating.

“I personally think it is completely arrogant and self righteous to think it is America’s duty to give the entire world our own version of “freedom” and if they don’t like it, to force them to take it.”

So you’re not going to answer my question why it’s not a FEAR TACTIC when Kerry backers say Bush makes us less safe, but it is a FEAR TACTIC whne Bush backers say Kerry will make us less safe?

I don’t blame you - it’s a tough one.

[quote]RepubCarrier wrote:
…there are no terrorists in Iran, and we aren’t at war with Iran, so that’s kind of irrelevant[/quote]

LOL…have you forgotten the Axis of Evil?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Me neither, and I didn’t claim as such, nor did Bush or any Bush supporters. Do yourself a favor and stick to facts and not wild conjecture.
[/quote]

Wait a second…if you agree that throwing everything into Iraq will not stop terrorism, then what is the true reason we are there again? Oh, wait, it is to liberate those poor Iraqi people, right?

[quote]
Not exactly. I don’t think openly discussing whether or not a candidate makes your country safer is not a FEAR TACTIC at all - I think it is the most important topic to discuss, and it shouldn’t be cloaked in politically correct sugarcoating. [/quote]

You just wrote that so I assume you actually believe that statement. You actually think that when Cheney states something to the effect that voting for Kerry is like asking for another attack, that this does not come into the realm of “scare tactics”? That is amazing. In fact, if you choose to even hold onto that line of thinking, any further debate with you is useless and a waste of my time…you are clearly insane.

From you?

Pro X,

In turn.

“Wait a second…if you agree that throwing everything into Iraq will not stop terrorism, then what is the true reason we are there again?”

I never thought invading Iraq would rid the world of terrorism. But it is a good start. It’s time we hold regimes accountable that harbor terror elements and Islamist fascism. Iraq was never going to ‘fix’ terrorism - and if you were half-educated, you’d know that claim was never made.

“You just wrote that so I assume you actually believe that statement. You actually think that when Cheney states something to the effect that voting for Kerry is like asking for another attack, that this does not come into the realm of “scare tactics”?”

Uh, no. I can explain it to you, but I can’t make you comprehend it. One last time - folks who say “Bush has made us less safe” are the exact same as the folks saying “Kerry will make us less safe” - and I think both points of view are legitimate to debate and not FEAR TACTICS.

“In fact, if you choose to even hold onto that line of thinking, any further debate with you is useless and a waste of my time…you are clearly insane.”

See above, and read it twice if you must.

“Hell, I can turn on the news and see that we are “less safe”.”

Precisely my point. You think Bush has made us ‘less safe’ - and I’m saying that’s a perfectly legitimate claim. So, in the spirit of consistency, when I say “Kerry will make us less safe”, the same rules apply. We need to be able to have a robust debate about tis issue, not shirk our duty and hide behind claims of FEAR TACTICS.

“Unless you are in the third grade, you realize that the threats to America’s safety do not all come from Iraq.”

This is so silly it makes my hair hurt. There isn’t one person - conservative or liberal - that has made a claim that all threats come from Iraq. No one believes that.

“However, that has not stopped this presidency from focusing all of our attention on that area of the world. Maybe calling the world less safe under Bush is a “scare tactic” by the definition of the word. I would also call it “the truth”.”

Profound. So I’ll do the same about Kerry.

“From you?”

Heh. You’re posting this with a straight face?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I never thought invading Iraq would rid the world of terrorism. But it is a good start. It’s time we hold regimes accountable that harbor terror elements and Islamist fascism. Iraq was never going to ‘fix’ terrorism - and if you were half-educated, you’d know that claim was never made.
[/quote]

Terrorism is not a person. It is a concept. It is like having a war against kidnapping. If you can not show all or even most terrorists to come from Iraq, it begs the question of why we are spending so much money and expending so many lives as if our efforts in Iraq will end terrorism. This war was started under false pretenses. It is being continued as if this was not the case.

As far as a discussion about safety, this becomes a tactic of fear when used by those who are in the positions to be voted for…not when used by two simply discussing the matter. That was the point in the original post and it is amazing that you can’t see this.

Pro X,

“Terrorism is not a person. It is a concept. It is like having a war against kidnapping.”

Yes. The war is against Islamism.

“If you can not show all or even most terrorists to come from Iraq, it begs the question of why we are spending so much money and expending so many lives as if our efforts in Iraq will end terrorism.”

Nonsense. There are many reasons, and they have been repeated ad nauseum.

‘As if our efforts in Iraq will end terrorism’?

More fantasy from you. No one is making that claim. Iraq is and has always been considered a starting point, a beginning…never an end.

“As far as a discussion about safety, this becomes a tactic of fear when used by those who are in the positions to be voted for…not when used by two simply discussing the matter.”

Your sophistry aside, Kerry has repeatedly made the claim that Bush has made the world less safe and, unless we all have it terribly wrong, Kerry is in a position to be voted for.

Based on your own crude, pedantic formula, Kerry is guilty of using FEAR TACTICS.

I personally don’t think so - I think those in power or who want to be in power should be able to make claims about the other candidate making the US less safe - so long as they make sound arguments - without the whining like a schoolgirl with a skinned knee over FEAR TACTICS.

Kerry should make the claim that we aren’t safer under Bush and lay out his explanation. So should Bush.

“That was the point in the original post and it is amazing that you can’t see this.”

Oh, I see it just fine. RSU asked if anyone thought the comments were ‘fair and reasonable’ - and I gave my answer that I thought, yes, the comments were fair and reasonable.

Actually, no, there is a difference. People commenting about Bush are pointing to actions taken. People commenting on Kerry are speculating and concluding based on nothing except their feelings about whether or not Kerry will do as he has claimed.

Have I managed to enlist all of you on this thread to THE CHALLENGE?

If you love the outstanding, one position on Iraq, I’ll bring Europeans to Iraq, I’m fantastic because I’m not George Bush, Kerry, Come on over!!

If you believe in our poor (Kerry is far better) President, come on over to THE CHALLENGE!!!

Only a few more days until the common man candidate John Kerry wins!!!

JeffR

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

More fantasy from you. No one is making that claim. Iraq is and has always been considered a starting point, a beginning…never an end.[/quote]

Amazing. I doubt anyone on this board truly gives a d’amn about the poor people of Iraq unless they are from that country. I seriously doubt that before 9/11, that any citizen born and raised here in the states lost any sleep over whether there was our form of democracy over there. Now, in order to justify a war that was initially started because of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND DIRECT TIES TO BIN LADEN, it is now a beginning without an end. That was so poetic. Sadly, it still does not explain why we went to war at the time we did or why so many soldiers have died up to this point. Who will we save next? Are they still doing those fund raising commercials about starvation in Somalia? Four more years of this?

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
RepubCarrier wrote:
…there are no terrorists in Iran, and we aren’t at war with Iran, so that’s kind of irrelevant

LOL…have you forgotten the Axis of Evil?[/quote]

i disagreed with labeling the countries as an “axis of evil” on principals, but Bush said that to put pressure on north korea and iran’s nuclear programs, which could possibly lead to a nuclear weapon being given to extremists (how likely that is, i dont know…). but there are no iranians killing soldiers in Iraq at the moment, and the iranian government has been surprisingly quiet about the 100,000+ troops right outside their borders.

Vroom,

“Actually, no, there is a difference. People commenting about Bush are pointing to actions taken. People commenting on Kerry are speculating and concluding based on nothing except their feelings about whether or not Kerry will do as he has claimed.”

What’s difference does that make?

Kerry is immune to criticism by virtue of never being elected to the Presidency?

Honestly, what’s the problem here? Is this anything different from any election we’ve ever had? No election in my memory has gone on without scare ads from both sides – if not directly from the candidates, than from the various national committees or proxies such as the NAACP, unions, etc. The original example of a TV ad that I can remember people referencing was the LBJ “Daisy” ad that showed a nuclear cloud going off and insinuated Goldwater would get us into a nuclear war with the USSR – I never saw that one, but it sounds pretty scary.

Both sides are engaging in “scare tactics” because they work – especially with the ignorant, which is far too large a chunk of the electorate (and it’s an even larger percentage of self-described independents than it is with self-described partisans). The only reason they don’t work even better is because large chunks of the ignorant who are already committed to a candidate refuse to believe anything from the other side, whether it’s true or not.

Does anyone really think that Kerry stump speeches trying to scare the elderly about social security aren’t scare tactics? Encouraging rumors about a reinstated draft aren’t “scare” tactics? Talking about possible terrorist attacks aren’t “scare” tactics? Those topics scare people.

Of course, some of those “scare tactics” are legitimate issues. A lot of experts think it might be inevitable that we get attacked by a suitcase bomb or what have you – there are about a million possible scenarios for terrorist attacks. Whether they would be more or less likely if one candidate is elected is a matter of debate – and it should be debated. Same thing with social security – what is to be done to fix that system is a matter of debate that should be discussed.

Again, though, the problem is ignorant voters who won’t discuss anything – how dumb is a person who gets the bulk of his political knowledge from paid 30-second TV commercials? It’s too bad that racists in the Jim Crow South brought such discredit to the idea of some sort of intelligence or at least knowledge test for voting, because it’s really not a bad concept.

I mean, how stupid is Cameron Diaz to believe that Republicans want to legalize rape? That wasn’t in a “scare ad”, but it shows the general mentality – the person even dumber is the one who adopts that belief because she heard Cameron Diaz say so.

“Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. … If you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote.” ? Cameron Diaz, 9/29/04.

I’m sure that’s a pretty scary idea – both what she said and the fact that any person could possibly believe such utter crap.

There have been 2 bills so far since the war has started that related to starting the draft again. One written by the republicans and the last written by the democrats. They have been both defeated in congress so far. The difference between the two was that the democratic one would not allow college admission and attendance to exempt you from service.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
There have been 2 bills so far since the war has started that related to starting the draft again. One written by the republicans and the last written by the democrats. They have been both defeated in congress so far. The difference between the two was that the democratic one would not allow college admission and attendance to exempt you from service.[/quote]

I’m not sure about the Republican bill you reference. However, from what I understand the draft bill was defeated in the House by something along the line of a 432-3 vote.

The Republican bill was long before the politics got heated and didn’t get much press attention like the last one. It was a while ago and old age is starting to set in. My point was that the possiblity exist regardless of who is in office. What we need to do is pay more attention to who we are putting in the House and Senate. They are the ones that could really hurt us in the long run. The President doesn’t have as much power as people think. Sometimes the checks and balances system is very effective.