Thread: States UNITED

Don't look now -- but Bush is uniting the country
Larry Elder December 2, 2004
"I hope that in this term," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "President Bush will fulfill his renewed promise to be a uniter, not a divider."
Don't look now, but Bush is doing some uniting.

Notice, for example, the absence of hysteria when the so-called ban against assault weapons expired. Sure, candidate Kerry, on the campaign trail, warned that the expiration of the ban makes "the job of terrorists easier and made the job of America's law-enforcement officers harder." But, for the most part, Kerry did not make this into a campaign issue. Why? Democrats know that, in 2000, presidential candidate Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, in part, because of Tennesseans' opposition to further gun control.

What about the divisive issue of abortion? "
I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary," said former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, "any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties. . . . The test is basic -- any person who thinks it's his or her job to push an extreme political agenda rather than to interpret the law should not be a Supreme Court justice."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, stated, "I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of us should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman's right to choose, and [we] must remain vigilant."

And the 2004 Democratic Party platform says, "Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay."

But with whom do the Democrats intend to replace the defeated liberal outgoing Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota? Harry Reid, D-Nevada. Who is Harry Reid? He calls himself pro-life. NARAL, formerly the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, gives Reid a mere 29 percent favorability rating. Contrast that with Daschle's 50 percent. Reid even supports mining interests against environmentalists.

Even more telling, a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll gives President Bush a personal favorability rating of 60 percent, and 55 percent now approve of his job. And what about "divisive," "extremist," "lightning rods" like National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and especially outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft?
The poll gives Condi Rice a 63 percent favorable rating, versus 26 percent unfavorable;
Rumsfeld a 51 percent favorable rating, versus 39 percent unfavorable,
and Ashcroft received a 50 percent favorable rating, versus 37 percent unfavorable.
Indeed, White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales recently praised his outgoing boss, "I will work hard to build upon [Ashcroft's] record."

Some called "hateful" Bush's proposal for [b]an amendment to ban gay marriage.
But most Americans -- 62 percent, according to recent polls -- oppose same-sex marriage.

What about the rest of the world? Yes, polls show that many French and Germans loathe Bush, dislike America's dominance and foreign policy, and even boycott American products and services. But the Bush administration just successfully pressured the 19 member nations of the Paris Club -- including Germany and France -- to forgive 80 percent of the $39 billion owed them by Iraq. The Bush administration also got Jordan to assist in the training of Iraqi military personnel.
Not bad for a divider.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/l...20041202.shtml

What!? That's not uniting anything!

Maybe you didn't understand.
The "world" is united in forgiving Iraqi debt, at the President's urging.

62% of Americans are united in opposition to gay-marriage.

Barely 26, 29, and 37 % of Americans view Condolezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft unfavorably, and Ashcroft's replacement vows to build on the foundation Ashcroft laid.

The democrats have chosen a Senate minority Leader who agrees with the President on Abortion.

And gun control has become a non-issue that democratic candidates don't even dare bring up.

Originally Posted by Gavino

Don't look now -- but Bush is uniting the country
Larry Elder December 2, 2004
"I hope that in this term," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "President Bush will fulfill his renewed promise to be a uniter, not a divider."
Don't look now, but Bush is doing some uniting.

Notice, for example, the absence of hysteria when the so-called ban against assault weapons expired. Sure, candidate Kerry, on the campaign trail, warned that the expiration of the ban makes "the job of terrorists easier and made the job of America's law-enforcement officers harder." But, for the most part, Kerry did not make this into a campaign issue. Why? Democrats know that, in 2000, presidential candidate Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, in part, because of Tennesseans' opposition to further gun control.

What about the divisive issue of abortion? "
I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary," said former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, "any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties. . . . The test is basic -- any person who thinks it's his or her job to push an extreme political agenda rather than to interpret the law should not be a Supreme Court justice."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, stated, "I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of us should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman's right to choose, and [we] must remain vigilant."

And the 2004 Democratic Party platform says, "Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay."

But with whom do the Democrats intend to replace the defeated liberal outgoing Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota? Harry Reid, D-Nevada. Who is Harry Reid? He calls himself pro-life. NARAL, formerly the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, gives Reid a mere 29 percent favorability rating. Contrast that with Daschle's 50 percent. Reid even supports mining interests against environmentalists.

Even more telling, a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll gives President Bush a personal favorability rating of 60 percent, and 55 percent now approve of his job. And what about "divisive," "extremist," "lightning rods" like National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and especially outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft?
The poll gives Condi Rice a 63 percent favorable rating, versus 26 percent unfavorable;
Rumsfeld a 51 percent favorable rating, versus 39 percent unfavorable,
and Ashcroft received a 50 percent favorable rating, versus 37 percent unfavorable.
Indeed, White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales recently praised his outgoing boss, "I will work hard to build upon [Ashcroft's] record."

Some called "hateful" Bush's proposal for [b]an amendment to ban gay marriage.
But most Americans -- 62 percent, according to recent polls -- oppose same-sex marriage.

What about the rest of the world? Yes, polls show that many French and Germans loathe Bush, dislike America's dominance and foreign policy, and even boycott American products and services. But the Bush administration just successfully pressured the 19 member nations of the Paris Club -- including Germany and France -- to forgive 80 percent of the $39 billion owed them by Iraq. The Bush administration also got Jordan to assist in the training of Iraqi military personnel.
Not bad for a divider.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/l...20041202.shtml

hail Caecer,

after Caecer, the Roman Republic is no more and replaced with Roman Emperors that take the Empire to even greater heights before eventual collapse.

Originally Posted by Gavino

Maybe you didn't understand.
The "world" is united in forgiving Iraqi debt, at the President's urging.

I think I would give the credit to the countries who decided to forgive the Iraqi debt, not to our president stating the obvious "kind" thing to do. And while I don't wish to belittle Bush's efforts in doing this (which I think is great), it surely doesn't have anything to do with uniting his own country, which I think should be a top priority

62% of Americans are united in opposition to gay-marriage.

Yea, but they were united before George Bush did anything. 62% vs. 38% is not united.

Barely 26, 29, and 37 % of Americans view Condolezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft unfavorably, and Ashcroft's replacement vows to build on the foundation Ashcroft laid.

Again, not united. I would think unity would mean a uniform agreement nearing 100%.

The democrats have chosen a Senate minority Leader who agrees with the President on Abortion.

Are you implying that democrats and republicans are now united against abortion?

And gun control has become a non-issue that democratic candidates don't even dare bring up.

So? Where's the unity? Making concessions doesn't mean unity.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

So? Where's the unity? Making concessions doesn't mean unity.

Actually that's exactly what it does mean.

At least it does except to those few people, like yourself, who think unity requires almost 100% agreement.

Originally Posted by Gavino

Actually that's exactly what it does mean.

At least it does except to those few people, like yourself, who think unity requires almost 100% agreement.

No, making concessions means coming to an agreement on something. You can agree on something and still not be unified. And here is the definition of unity that I have, brought to us by our friends at Merriam-Webster:

Originally Posted by Definition of Unity

Pronunciation: 'yü-n&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English unite, from Middle French unité, from Latin unitat-, unitas, from unus one -- more at ONE
1 a : the quality or state of not being multiple : ONENESS b (1) : a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation <in a table of natural sines the radius of the circle is regarded as unity> (2) : IDENTITY ELEMENT

2 a : a condition of harmony : ACCORD b : continuity without deviation or change (as in purpose or action)

3 a : the quality or state of being made one : UNIFICATION b : a combination or ordering of parts in a literary or artistic production that constitutes a whole or promotes an undivided total effect; also : the resulting singleness of effect or symmetry and consistency of style and character

4 : a totality of related parts : an entity that is a complex or systematic whole

Sounds like 100% to me. By your definition, this country was always unified. 51% were unified for Bush and 49% were unified against Bush. See? We were unified to begin with!

ei yi yi yi!

Yet ANOTHER dictionary definition!

Do you liberals have no other form of argument available to you?
Don't you realize how lame it is, as an argument?
"It depends on what Is", Is, didn't teach you a thing?

And yet by your definition, the USA, had better change it's name, and the name was wrong from the beginning.

Ditto for

United Nations
United Way
United Mine Workers
and
Mexicanos United For Better Burittoes.

YOu know Gav you basically just lost the argument here. Speak gave you the accepted definition of the term you chose to use and instead of responding to the issue you attack Speak for pointing out why the use of the term in this case is incorrect.

Actually from my perspective the only lame thing here was your inablility to respond intelligently to Speaks post.

Originally Posted by Gavino

ei yi yi yi!

Yet ANOTHER dictionary definition!

Do you liberals have no other form of argument available to you?
Don't you realize how lame it is, as an argument?

Seriously... Gavino really has you guys here. I mean, come on - quoting the dictionary - how biased can you be?

If you idiot pinkos don't stop relying on things like commonly accepted definitions, plain truth, and credible sources, how can you possibly present a cohesive, much less logical argument?

Do you have any idea how lame you sound? Do you have no other recourse for arguing? Next, you guys are going to claim that 2+2=4 just because some calculator says so. When are you going to wake up and realize how biased calculators actually are? When are you going to admit that 2+2=4 is a terrible argument - I mean, come on.