Our bilingual candidate

Remove all ads!

I would like to point out that this makes him go UP in my estimation!

 

Does speaking whatever the listener wants to hear make Kerry "multilingual?"

 

Y'know, ironically, I really prefer the ultra-rich, diplomatically-minded, French-speaking, New England-living type...much better than the blunt-speaking, English-mangling, Southern-living type. If only Kerry and Bush would switch ideologies and character, I'd be the happiest voter in America!

 

I find it strange that Bush and co. were critizing Kerry for actually being able to speak another language (and for people aplauding this). Bush cannot even speak English properly so whats his problem with people speaking French? I thought people would want a leader with a brain.

I understand that the Americans don't like the French because Fox News used to run footage of Chirac meeting with Saddam. However, if the footage was to run further it would show Don Rumsfeld congratulating him on Kuwait.

 

You know, some people say (yeah, FOX style) education is a burden that prevents you from seeing things as they ought to be -- black and white -- and when you eventually are able to communicate with outlanders you cause suspicious that you might be a traitor. Like Hanoi-John aka Monsieur Kerry

In the end we are talking about a country where the current president campaigns against his opponent on that he has a french cousin. But then, in this age of terror, isn't that pretty great compared to the President's family having a cozy relationship with the Bin Laden's? Nevermind.
That this nonsense actually resonates in notable parts of America's backwoods population -- many of whom don't even own a passport that would allow them to cross America's borders -- is the really scary part.

But you recognise hillbillies not only when they speak but also by the gifted messages on their t-shirt

 

BTA,
you're pretty much right about that one.

As for appeal, the stuff is over and over on Fox and in the mouths and on the websites of the GOP dittoheads. It does resonate -- I do not invent that. We might disagree about the use of the term Hillbilly or backwoods population -- having never been to the backwoods of America I use it as an insult, not as a description of actual people by where they live. Being a "Hinterwäldler" is a problem of mindset IMO.

And yes, haveing (unfortunately) never been to America (yet), I was limited to explore the internet-parrallel-world of that part of America. Web-site delving I saw, I read and now I know and I'm scared

And yes, I've been stereotyping

 

When you do get over here Rags, it would be my honor you show you around. I'll drive you around in my muddy 4-wheel drive Ford pickup (don't bump your head on the gunrack) while we chew tobacco (grew it myself), discuss the NASCAR points standings and listen to the Dixie Chicks.

Wait...scratch the Dixie Chicks...that 8-track tape is somewhere along the side of the road on Highway 41...the Dixie Chicks went pinko.

Happy to join you in sterotyping.

 

Well i'm sure a wee bit of stereotyping is not going to cause anyone any harm, after all the Germans and Irish have been stereotyped for many years.

Yes it can be very offensive but Ragusa's are mild compared to what I have received in the past.

 

Dear Hacken, I don't think you really get my point:

The riding on the fact that Kerry can speak *french* (he-he-he) is IMO a very illuminating point about Bush's campaign, maybe one of the most telling.

What did the french do? So it is France's fault, and their failt alone, that they delayed Americas rightous march to revenge 911 -- oblivious of the divine nature of America's fury? Just a point: Did America play any role in this or were they just the innocent victims of Frances envy and rivalry? Gimme a break. Please.

The Kerry-France pseudo-argument builds on the bias argument of the US right. The liberal-bias works by giving the American right the feeling to be at least persecuted minority whose voice isn't heared -- if not a majority that is being ridden roughshot by the liberal elitists controlling the media! Boo-Hoo! It works with fear -- fear to be not heared, fear to be left aside.
And for the GOP propagandists the liberal elitists like John Kerry aren't happy with controlling public opinion with their biased media -- they also sell out America's interests to their overseas cronies!

This line of argument works with fear of treason, national sell-out. So it also invokes patriotism of the own followers -- The country is in danger when John Kerry wins! Unite!

Bush's election campaign builds on a feeling of insecurity, and xenophobic and anti-intellectual sentiments in the US. Now that's something to ponder about.

The Kerry-France point implies that someone who can speak a foreign language like french -- and even has french relatives -- might be tempted not to serve America's interests first. That is not only insulting, it's defamation. It's what's underneath I dislike.

Sure, not all Americans feel the appeal of this -- but the fact that it is used over and over again on the GOP campaign tells me that there is a point to it -- the point that it works.

I just read an article about Saddam's interrogation. In found one thing particularly striking. Dr. Jerrold M. Post, a psychiatrist, profiled Saddam in captivity for the CIA and concluded that he is “not psychotic.” But Post said that the former dictator has a distorted worldview because he has had very little experience outside of Iraq.

Maybe speaking french and having made travels overseas to see the world, and having talked *with* (not just *to*) people there is a healthy thing for a head of state. Just a point.

/me combs his blonde hair, mutters his morning prayer ending with "... and Bush sucks!", straightens his lederhosen and goes to have beer, sausages and sauerkraut for dinner ...

[ October 21, 2004, 12:08: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Sorry, I just couldn't let this quote go unanswered.

As opposed to Kerry...

Who is attempting to scare younger voters into voting for him by claiming Bush is secretly planning to re-institute the draft and send them to war.

or

Telling Americans that Bush is responsible for the lack of flu shots when it was British regulators that shut down the company making the vaccine.

or (still see the above link) scaring senior citizens that Bush will privatize social security and/or reduce benefits.

Just trying to keep the threads "fair and balanced"

 

TGS - There's one problem with that argument - most of what Kerry is saying is true.

First the false stuff. The flu shot stuff that Kerry is spouting is complete rubbish. Yes, we were expecting the UK to supply 1/2 of our total flu shots this year, but it's certainly not Bush's fault that this British company got shut down at the last minute, after those shots were already manufactured. I dislike Bush as much as anyone, but he didn't drop the ball on this one.

On the draft: This isn't that far fetched. We don't have enough troops in Iraq. The Iraq war is polarizing the entire middle east against the U.S., and that has the potential to turn into a s***storm of epic proportions. If Bush continues with his pre-emption policy on terrorism, we are going to need more troops. Moreover, many in the Armed Forces are being forced to sign on for another tour, whether they want to or not, and thus there is, in effect, a backdoor draft right now.

As for Social Security: Based on Bush's own words, that essentially what's going to happen. Bush's proposal: Instead of paying into social security, allow people to invest that money in other ways - i.e., the stock market, ergo private. If that happens, we've got a major problem. The baby boomers are going to start collecting benefits in 10 years, and if we aren't taking in nearly as much money from Social Security i.e., people who are still working and thus paying for the current people's benefits, where is that money going to come from? Unless we screw them all over, which would be pretty much unforgivable, considering these people paid into that program their entire lives.

 

@Aldeth

1. The draft. Bush has said repeatedly that there will not be a draft. Anyone with a little common sense should be able to figure out that a draft would be political suicide for generations. Today's kids are so babied that it would never happen unless there was an actual invasion.

2. Allowing people to invest some of their social security investments (and I use that term loosely) makes a tremendous amount of sense. It is time that the government and the people made social security what it was originally intended to be. That is a safety net and/or a supplement to peoples retirement. I have no sympathy for people who retire without any assets. In regards to the baby-boomer generation retirement. They are perhaps the wealthiest generation this planet has ever seen. Without a doubt there should be a test to see if you even qualify for benefits. There is no way in hell that Bill Gates should be allowed to collect his $24,487 (the maximum someone could collect in 2003).

There are many different definitions of the truth. I don't consider what Kerry is saying as the truth. I consider it fear mongering equal to if not exceeding what Bush is accused of.

 

@ Snook

Bush has also said repeatedly that Iraq had WMD. Bush has also said repeatedly that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war. Bush also said "Osama: Dead or alive." Bush also said "I'm a uniter, not a divider." In fact, nearly everything Bush has said regarding this war has come to be proven false.

So when people say things like "Bush says there won't be a draft, so there won't be!" - despite the fact that our military is currently stretched to the breaking point and the Pentagon has designs on Iran and North Korea - I'm sure you'll forgive me if I'm more than a little skeptical.

I never quote blogs, but if you can shoot down Kevin Drum's logic on this one, I'll eat my own head.

If you're planning on voting for Bush, that's fine. But can you really, after all that's happened in the last 2 years, say with any certainty that when Bush promises no draft, he can actually keep it? WOULD actually keep it? He doesn't exactly have the best track record for accuracy and proper planning, you know. And as a man of reasable health and of draft age, I'm worried.

Under a second Bush term, the draft is extremely likely, period. "Anyone with a little common sense" can see that. Denying this is as foolish as it is pointless.

 

I've heard that one way to address the shortage of quality volunteer military personel would be to allow a higher number of GED holders to enlist. Currently, only a small percentage (vs High School graduates) is allowed.

The number of qualified applicants who have only a GED has been estimated as high as 12,000, and they are currently on a waiting list.

I agree with BTA...we'll see ru-up bonuses and elistment bonuses (which at this time are rather historically low) before we see anything. There are far more effective means that the military can employ to increase their ranks...draft is not even on the horizon.

I sure haven't seen the Bush camp try to use horror stories...like the ones about "how can Kerry defend the US, if he can't even defend himself from the swift-boat vets"...that's a real horror story...one that I predict will come true if he gets elected.

Oh, and Rags...I understood you, I was just poking fun...so, you comin or not?

 

There is no way that the US will reinstitute a draft. There will be, regardless of who wins the election, a massive increase in funding for the US military in 2005. Here is a rather interesting article on the subject from web page

 

Three things, fellas.

Hmm...I don't FEEL anti-intellectual...

I think it's one of the great ironies of this campaign that the Republicans and Democrats have seemingly reversed their traditional foreign policy perspectives. Now the Democrats are preaching the virtues of isolationism, cutting foreign aid, increasing border barriers, contempt for cultures unready/unfit for democracy, and fear of the stereotyped Other (remember Kerry warning during the debate that illegals slip across the border every day -- and, gasp, "some are even from the Middle East"! -- probably looking just like Bush's secretary of energy!).

Second, BTA puts it exactly right:

US armies, like US corporations, are heavy on training and technology and light on manpower. A draft would disrupt the economy that feeds the war machine, poison the political atmosphere, and mangle materiel. It would be much easier to drawdown troops from oh-so-critical hotspots like Europe. And the only reason the US has lots of troops in place is because it cares about the ultimate government of Afghanistan and Iraq. Preemption by itself doesn't require a lot of troops -- it's regime change that bogs down soldiers. If war broke out, the US could flatten Iran or North Korea without going through the regime-change motions.

And third...not to ruin the humorlessness here or anything, but...I'm PRO-FRENCH. I meant this thread ironically. D'accord?

 

@ TGS

I can't add any more to the draft discussion that hasn't already been said by someone else since my last post. However, I would like to go back to the SS issue.

First of all, let's say Bush does allow people to privately invsest some of their funds that would normally go to SS. Let's say 25% just for the sake of arguement. Even with this relatively low percentage you are going to have huge shortfalls in paying the people who are of retirement age. That's simple math. Now onto some of your other points:

You and I have very different opinions about this. I view SS as a main source of income for aging people who never made it. If you have no sympathy for people who retire without any assets, and don't think that we need SS for this very purpose, then truly there would be no need for SS whatsoever, as people who retire with adequate savings do not rely on SS as a main income source. I tend to think that you are like me: one of the fortunate. Fortunate in that we are educated people, and even from a relatively young age, we have some form of retirement plan set up and are investing a percentage of our income (in my case 5%) from every paycheck. We're not the people that SS was developed for. However, we also don't want SS to be a handout, and therefore all who pay into it, are entitled to get something out of it.

Your statement is true (that the baby boomers are some of the wealthiest people on the planet) because they are the oldest non-retired people in the U.S. Generally, as you get older, you get more work experience and command a higher salary. That's just common sense, and I imagine (in the white collar world at least) this has been the standard for quite some time. Whether you are talking about now, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 100 years ago, I'm willing to bet that people in their 50s made more money than people in the 40s, 30s, or 20s.

The point is though that just because many will make it, doesn't mean all of them will. And that, I maintain is the true purpose of SS. I also think that just because you are financially secure does not mean you should get reduced or no benefits. That doesn't make any sense at all. If you paid into a system all your life, and then did not receive as much or perhaps even nothing at all, you would in effect turn SS into an handout. It would almost be as if you were punishing the people who were successful. If you weren't going to get as much in the way of benefits, and privatization was an option, you'd be even MORE likely to invest elsewhere, because anywhere else you choose, you're likely to get some return on that investment.

One more thing. I do not deny that the average person could make much more money by investing what they pay into SS every year in the stock market. This is almost certain. In this regard privatizing SS seems to make sense. But the problem with that is this wasn't an option before, and we will have people who have paid into this system for years getting stiffed on the benefits. I already have paid thousands of dollars into SS in the limited amount of time I have been working. I don't have my paycheck in front of me, but I think I pay over $100 every two weeks into SS. People of my parents age have paid tens of thousands of dollars into SS. After all that, if they were suddenly informed that they would not get full benefits, that would just suck, and would be patently unfair. Especially considering many people may have planned their retirements by including a $24,000 annual benefit from SS. (And in case you're wondering if I'm arguing this way for the benefit of my parents, I should state now that my parents do NOT have SS as their sole, or even primary source of income in their retirement years.

 

Dam, the shocking part is what can be mistaken for a fluency in French in some parts. But I think Kerry would be so better off, if he had taken some lessons in Spanish. Would be way more groovy in the latin hemisphere. Anyways, he managed to go into a Swiss School for a year withoug picking up a single word Swissgerman. But if he had stayed where he was and would have gotten the citizenship of that canton, he'd be eligible for the Swissguard. Wouldn't that bug (not nerve) Chevy ?

That's a great article. Yet it doesn't convince me. That is to say, the proposal of raising the salaries to overcome the shortage in manpower is probably the by far best course of action. Yet, it also spells political suicide, at least that's the way I deem the reaction to a sudden rise in taxation to previously unkown peaks. Bush isn't fond of doing unpopular things, so the course will be inaction as long as possible. Until late 2006 I speculate. But in any case, Bush has to be re-elected. I don't want the war bills to go to the wrong address.

[ October 23, 2004, 00:14: Message edited by: Iago ]