Monday, October 18, 2004

Questions for Democrats Still Supporting Kerry

Here are some questions to ask Democrats who are still supporting John Kerry. Wouldn't it be nice if this country had an unbiased news media that would ask these questions directly to the Kerry Campaign? Anyway, give them a try. Any Kerry supporter who has an answer, please "let me have it".

1. Considering that the only legislation calling for the re-institutionof the draft has been put forward by Democrats. (Rep. Charles Rangel, D - NY & Sen. Fritz Hollings, D - South Carolina); that both Kerry and Edwards repeatedly mention the possible need for a draft on the campaign trail, and that John Kerry has pledged to increase the Army by two divisions (10,000 to 18,000 each) and 20,000 new special forces troops; would a President Kerry re-institute the draft? If not where does he propose to get the 56,000 new troops from?

2. Recently John Kerry likened Islamic Terrorists, bent on the destruction of Western Culture for religious reasons to organized criminals pushing gambling and prostitution for money. In light of John Kerry's past willingness to abandon the Cold War on Communism, why should the American peole believe that John Kerry has the vision to lead the War on Terror?

3. John Kerry has promised to cut the taxes of the middle class, increase spending on the military, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, and the War on Terror. Kerry has promised to provide the same healthcare benifits available to senators to all Americans, and free healthcare to all children. Kerry has promised to reduce the Medicare eligibility age to 55, fully fund "No Child Left Behind', re-institute costly federal funding for local police and fire departments, provide college tuition to all, and on and on and on!!!! When President Bush pointed out that reinstating the taxes cuts on the top 2% of American incomes, those over $200,000 per year, will not cover the bill; Kerry replied that his promises are on a pay-as-you-go contingency. Why shouldn't voters beilieve that Kerry is making promises he can't keep?

4. A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR HILLARY! Don't you see that a vote for Nader in 2004 is not a vote for Bush; it is a vote to make Hillary's 2008 campaign possible?

8 comments:

me said...

I'll title my comment, "Question for Radical Right-Wing Anonymous Blogger." Why do you think anyone should take your Democrat-bashing diatribe seriously when you don't have the guts to give your real name and profile? Your writing, no matter how eloquent, is so intollerant of anyone with diverse opinions that is sounds like it's written by a Philistine who's unable to really own their opinions. Yet, you like to take anoymous pot shots at anyone who thinks outside your own little mind. At least the country-splitting, intollerant, right-wing media clowns like O'Reilly, Snow and Hannity (obviously Gods in your little mind) have the balls to give their real names. Go crawl back into your little hole and stop clogging up the Internet with your anonymous crap. I gladly sign my real name to this comment.

-Tom Rathke
www.splatrabbit.com

me said...

I forgot to add this to my previous comment. HR163 was easily defeated because it was really brought to a vote to challenge your arguement about the draft. Being before the election, hardly anyone would vote to support this bill. Who in their right mind would do so before an election? But what the right-wing fails to point out is that the same bill in the Senate, S89, is still out there waiting for a post-election vote. If this bill were to pass, Kerry believes that Bush would sign it. Kerry is saying he, if elected, would veto it. Since Bush has repeatedly lied to us about Iraq, why should any reasonable person beleive that he was speaking the truth in the debate about not allowing a new draft?

- Tom Rathke
www.splatrabbit.com

Bryan Hickman said...

Tom...get a life.

Personal attacks are generally indicative of a lack of reasonable argumentation. Thanks for proving that to all of us.

Calling pieces of legislation by their resolution number doesn't really impress anyone. Especially since it's clear you haven't even read the bills. If you had, you'd see that, just as Lysis said, they were proposed and sponsored by left-wing Democrats and have garnered absolutely no support from either Republican or non-retarded Democrats. Yet, Kerry has decided to make this a campaign issue in order save is sinking campaign by scaring up votes from uninformed people. As the polls currently indicate, it's not working.

Cool...you signed your name to your post. You're so awesome. Seriously, dude, you're the tuffest and gnarliest internet geek around. You sure showed Lysis who I bet keeps his anonymity solely either because he's a secret agent hired by Karl Rove (or even Rove himself) and he doesn't want to draw any "official" attention in the news media as he, "small mind" and all, spreads his Hannity-like deceptions to all nine people who comment on his blog.

If he were tuff like you, he wouldn't hide behind this persona and he'd sign his actual name.

However, Tom, when people like you go online WITHOUT the cover of anonymity, they run into problems. First, everyone has a name to attach to your stupid statements and, second, no girls will talk to in chatrooms because they like more mystery with their cybersex.

You're really shooting yourself in the foot by being so open, Tom.

Dan Simpson said...

Tom, your first problem is that this blog was started by a brilliant teacher to start some conversation. He invited those he knew, and thus knew him, to come and join. We all know who he is, his forum name is a mere affectation. If you spend so much time roaming blogs that you fall into ones written by people unknown to you, do not blame the author because of your ignorance. Not everyone is so in need of others acceptance that they must put their entire profile onto the web.

I will, at this point, stoop to personal attacks. Only an idiot, an asinine idiot, would come onto a blog he is unfamiliar with and begin to berate the author for not revealing all of his personal info. We know who Lysis is. If you don't, so what. If you don't agree with his ideas, that is one thing, but to attack him for not putting his name on the blog.

You can take your problems with Lysis's blog and cram 'em.

Publius said...

I'll title my comment "To Tom Rathke- the radical left-Wing Question Dodger." I don't know if you have had any formal debate training but if so you would know you have based the premise of your argument on a classical logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem is a Latin term meaning "to the person" meaning to attack the person instead of his or her arguments? Stating someone's arguments are not worthy of a response because they post anonymously is not only an ad hominem attack it is a poorly constructed one. The idea that my or your "Christian given name" has any more meaning in a forum such as this is quite absurd. Tom Rathke? What does that name mean to me here? You imply, I think, that to use a pseudo-name is a sign of cowardice. I would simply state that this is a forum of ideas where many find comfort in anonymity. Perhaps I might, in jest, suggest why many enjoy anonymity because they wish to avoid the "personal attacks" and verbal bulling they may get from individuals who would simplistically overly personalize the arguments with their author.
Your ad hominiem attack went further to state that the author's writing, although eloquent was intolerant of others "diverse opinions." It would have been more helpful to your case to state your "diverse opinions" against Lysis's arguments rather than your narrow opinions on his political views. If you are going to build an argument that Lysis's arguments can't be trusted because he is a narrow minded right-winger, have the intelligence not to destroy your own argument by proving your own political bias. If I can't trust Lysis's objectivity I certainly have no reasons to trust yours. To claim that Lysis is intolerant and taking pot shots is a cruel irony. I will leave it up to the readers hear to decide to whom these labels best fit. This is not the greatest weakness of your argument. The real hypocrisy lies in your inference. You infer that people with strong opinions are narrow minded intolerant clowns. Quite inflammatory given the fact you obviously hold strong opinions yourself. Be honest, what you really are stating is that anyone who holds strong opinions that differ from yours are narrow minded and there arguments are not worthy of your consideration. Is there any better example of intolerance?
One check you might self administer on your own objectivity on the issue of anonymity is to see if you apply it consistently on principles rather than partisanship. Did you wage these same complaints against CBS's airing documents from anonymous sources condemning Bush's National Guard service? Or better yet condemn the anonymous sources that consciously feed the rumors of the planned Bush National Draft. (Again amplified by news outlets like CBS) Let those spreading these rumors take your advice and come forward and put evidence to their accusations. Let us see them put their arguments and reputations on the line for all to judge.
The surest sign of intolerance is to attempt through what ever means to silence voices that disagree. You use bulling and name calling, which is your right. Let us hope you never obtain more power than that of your right to express your opinion no mater how crudely. I for one am comforted to know that because of Bush there is one less person in the world who first wished his dissenters would "crawl back into their holes", and then with the powers of an unjust government put them there with a bullet in their backs.

Silver Lining said...

It is almost gratuitous to add anything at this point. However, in the hopes that Tom might read these remarks as well as the new post from Lysis, I would add for his benefit a reference to Lysis.

Tom, you gave your name. We know your name, but we know nothing about you still.

Lysis is one of the dialogues of Plato (a personal favorite not that it matters). It discusses what is friendship. Though not the "real name" of the author, it tells even individuals who do not know Lysis more about Lysis than a simple name. Thought you might be interested in some background.

Beef Jerky said...

Lysis was the best teacher I ever had in school and one of my biggest mentors. His family has played an immense role in my life - his three sons are some of my closest brothers. His wife is like a second mother to me. I went to his oldest son's wedding; his second son accompanied me to a sacred place the day before I left on a two-year journey to a foreign country; his youngest son sits by me every other day in my National Parks class at the U of U. I know his name, Tom. Do you?

Dr. Health said...

Kerry has promised to provide the same healthcare benifits available to senators to all Americans, and free healthcare to all children.