DIviders, not Uniters
Friday, June 24th, 2005 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinyYou all may recall last year about this time, I was gearing up for the 2004 election. I signed up on the John Kerry website and worked really hard to promote the man that I felt was best suited for the job. I have since changed my mind and gone from a staunch Democrat to not being one. It was brought to my attention that I wasn't voting with my morals and ethics. And when I looked at my reasons for wanting to be a Democrat, it wasn't because I felt that side was right. It was because I didn't like what the other side was doing. I had taken a "them vs us" attitude and was determined to bring about some change. So I re-evaluated what was important to me. When I did that, I realized that I sided with the President. I didn't think he was a saint, but I felt he was closer to what I believed than John Kerry. At the very least, he did what he said. I could count on him to say something and do it.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-27 01:01 am (UTC)Btw you showed us both who you really are today. A lonely man that is self daluted, that really didn't care for a friend, so what did he really want? Which is another thing that is frightening, why is a 40 year old(guessing) married man hanging out with a single women that is 25 years old?
I bet you I can guess.
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-27 01:22 am (UTC)So it's ok, babe. My honor wasn't attacked. I don't think he was calling me a dog.
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-27 03:37 am (UTC)My, what a glowing Christian attitude you are displaying. Mr. Future Husband of Janina's. Since you seem so willing to cast stones here, I feel I must point out a few things. Why is a 40 (39) year old man doing hanging out with a 25 year old single woman? Oh, I don't know--what's a 25 year old woman doing hanging out with a 39 year old man? Was Janina forced to spend time with Joe? I hardly think so. It goes both ways and I feel I should warn you to be careful while flinging stones-those walls in your glass house are awfully fragile.
The prevailing attitude here seems to be that Joe wasn't and still isn't deserving of Janina's friendship. That he failed her somehow and that he didn't "care for a friend". I count Joe among my closest friends and I can guarantee you that HE'S not the one who failed in that particular friendship. Joe is one of the most caring and sincere people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. If my friendship with Joe is any indication at all of how he treats his other friends, including you, Janina, then I have no doubt that you were never treated with anything less than respect.
Using your own standards of friendship, Janina, I must only conclude that perhaps YOU were not and still are not worthy of Joe's friendship. Friends are not disposable. You can't trade them in for something 'better' when you feel you need a change. And above all, when you do treat friends that way, it's foolish to expect them to be there when you suddenly decide to talk to them again.
I'd say that one day you might regret treating Joe this way, but I think that's probably a lost cause. What I've read here today almost smacks of brainwashing. It's like Joe's talking to a brick wall. A brick wall that's been brainwashed by another, slightly moronic brick wall.
Sad, really.
--C
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-27 03:57 am (UTC)Matthew is just defensive. He needn't be and I believe I even said as much in my journal. Calling someone a dog could definitely be mistaken, but he still should keep his temper in check.
I don't think I have EVER tried to trade my friends in. EVER. E-V-E-R. I have tried really hard to keep in touch with them even after I "changed" or "found something I was missing." It's something I have found difficult to do because people simply don't believe me when I say that I care and that I love them. I went out with Joe a couple weeks back to try to fix whatever had happened to our friendship. I didn't want him to be left out. I didn't want him to miss my marriage. But there just was the gap. I know part of it was from December and I'm sure part of it was just that I have changed and don't agree with him on some things.
Thanks for being a good friend to Joe.
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-28 06:33 pm (UTC)I would apologize for not sharing, but the whole point was that I felt uncomfortable. And I have apologized, but it was too little too late anyway.
Nitpicking apart our friendship has probably been the lowest point of the friendship. I am sorry that it came to this. I am sorry that we could always communicate well about everything else except our friendship. I can't change it now. There's nothing that I can do now that will correct it. If I could send out a BST overnight to install it, I would.
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-30 11:09 am (UTC)Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-30 05:20 pm (UTC)It was reprinted a couple of years ago in Billboard magazine in an ad reflecting Cash's opinion on the current state of country music and the music business in general: http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/Audio/cash-ad.php The ad's message, placed directly above Cash's middle finger: "American Recordings and Johnny Cash would like to acknowledge the Nashville music establishment and country radio for your support."
It's a very famous image. Look at that, you learned something new today and I bet it didn't hurt a bit! :)
And as far as me defending Joe-of course I did simply because he's my friend. I imagine he'd do the same for me if the situation were reversed. It's just what friends do.
--Joe's anonymous friend who doesn't have a LJ
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-07-04 12:33 pm (UTC)That Joe is flipping of country music? The recording industry? The self righteous?
Yeah... makes it better because its a picture from billboard magazine.
Who cares, its Joe's view on how he wants to be portrayed. Read his Journal he is flipping off everyone there with his rantings.
Great guy?... yeah right.
NEXT.