Thread Tools

Display Modes

tlong · 08-23-2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blazer Ringbearer!
Thanks for the tip...

You're right, I should vote for Bush.

He stands up for just about everything that I hate - and he has the presence of a poor man's Dan Quail.

I'll get right on that.

He certainly has more presence than John "The Chameleon" Kerry.

**Scout226** · 08-23-2004, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perfection!

OMG. Do you actually believe this? The democrats don't need to use these kind of tactics...and they shouldn't be credited to them. Rather, Democrats win when people THINK. I find it ironic because it always seems to be the Republicans who come out firing first with the smut...and it makes it difficult for the democrats because if they are man enough not to retaliate, they take a hit in the polls becuase these untruths aren't dealt with.

.. etc. etc.. etc..

OMG. Do you actually belive this?

I'm sorry, but I found your whole post doing the same thing that you blame Target for doing. Maybe it's really Republicans who win when people THINK.

Don't believe the Democrats are the poor victim here. They don't just sit on there hands until the big bad Republicans run a smeer campaign. Both sides do it. They don't wait to get hit first with it. Both sides come out on the offense throwing smut and accusation around.

I'm a Republican, and I'm not real happy with Bush, but I don't see ANYTHING in Kerry that's tells me he's going to do anything better. Oh, one thing he'll do better at is lying/flip-flopping. I know ALL politicians lie, but Kerry can't keep his story straight.

BTW, I love this little arguement between parties and the whole Kerry military history. The whole medals thing is funny. I do find that the purple hearts he so called earned are shady. I've heard of other vets receiving purple hearts, and all of them actually got injured. I know his bronze medal is minor compared to the others, but after our CO received one while serving in the first gulf war, I think they are worthless. The guy stayed in a hotel the whole time and drove around in an SUV. It's not always what you did, but who you are and your rank that gets you the medal.

GO BLAZERS!

GO REPUBLICANS!

Blazer Ringbearer · 08-23-2004, 10:16 AM

I'm not sure what being a so-called "chameleon" has to do with presence. Could Bush even spell the word?

As far as I've seen, Kerry can complete a sentence without having to put a foot in his mouth, pause for breath, or look dumbfounded by the effort.

In regards to where Kerry stands, if you're honestly curious (I doubt you are), go here...

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

I don't understand lambasting a guy for the so called "flip-flopper" thing. It seems like party-line BS to me...

For one, these bills are not black and white as people have been trying to insinuate. Sometimes a bill might be for a cause you agree with, but you don't agree with the approach - or you don't like the crap that they tack on at the last minute - or maybe you feel there is no way to pay for it without going into deep debt.

You can be for a CAUSE and still be against a BILL. There's a distinct difference.

Additionally, the guy has been a senator for 20 years. Raise your hand if you haven't changed your mind on a single issue over the last 20 years... nobody? okay. Kerry has been charged with representing people of his state... even if he never changed his mind, don't you think he should listen to his voters in any changes they make?

Let's move on to the important issue: Puppies...

"Do you like puppies, yes or no? Well, which is it Kerry?! Yesterday, you said you hated them, now you have a golden retriever!!!"

**Blazerfan024** · 08-23-2004, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blazer Ringbearer!
I'm not sure what being a so-called "chameleon" has to do with presence. Could Bush even spell the word?

As far as I've seen, Kerry can complete a sentence without having to put a foot in his mouth, pause for breath, or look dumbfounded by the effort.

In regards to where Kerry stands, if you're honestly curious (I doubt you are), go here...

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

I don't understand lambasting a guy for the so called "flip-flopper" thing. It seems like party-line BS to me...

For one, these bills are not black and white as people have been trying to insinuate. Sometimes a bill might be for a cause you agree with, but you don't agree with the approach - or you don't like the crap that they tack on at the last minute - or maybe you feel there is no way to pay for it without going into deep debt.

You can be for a CAUSE and still be against a BILL. There's a distinct difference.

Additionally, the guy has been a senator for 20 years. Raise your hand if you haven't changed your mind on a single issue over the last 20 years... nobody? okay. Kerry has been charged with representing people of his state... even if he never changed his mind, don't you think he should listen to his voters in any changes they make?

Let's move on to the important issue: Puppies...

"Do you like puppies, yes or no? Well, which is it Kerry?! Yesterday, you said you hated them, now you have a golden retriever!!!"

**Blazerfan024** · 08-23-2004, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blazer Ringbearer!
I'm not sure what being a so-called "chameleon" has to do with presence. Could Bush even spell the word?

As far as I've seen, Kerry can complete a sentence without having to put a foot in his mouth, pause for breath, or look dumbfounded by the effort.

In regards to where Kerry stands, if you're honestly curious (I doubt you are), go here...

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

I don't understand lambasting a guy for the so called "flip-flopper" thing. It seems like party-line BS to me...

For one, these bills are not black and white as people have been trying to insinuate. Sometimes a bill might be for a cause you agree with, but you don't agree with the approach - or you don't like the crap that they tack on at the last minute - or maybe you feel there is no way to pay for it without going into deep debt.

You can be for a CAUSE and still be against a BILL. There's a distinct difference.

Additionally, the guy has been a senator for 20 years. Raise your hand if you haven't changed your mind on a single issue over the last 20 years... nobody? okay. Kerry has been charged with representing people of his state... even if he never changed his mind, don't you think he should listen to his voters in any changes they make?

Let's move on to the important issue: Puppies...

"Do you like puppies, yes or no? Well, which is it Kerry?! Yesterday, you said you hated them, now you have a golden retriever!!!"

The guy has probably changed his mind like 20 times just in the race let alone how many times he has probably changed it in his 20 years.

So far off the top of my head he has changed his stance on:

War (Was for it at start, then against it, now for it again?)

Taxes(Says Lower, Vote's for raising of gas tax by 50c, wants to balance budget in 3 years which means dont expect a lower tax in who knows how long)

Military(Says he supports them, but votes against funding for them)

Ill post more later have to leave right now.

Blazer Ringbearer · 08-23-2004, 10:50 AM

From what I've seen, Kerry has been pretty consistent in his war stance.

He voted to give Bush the authority on the information he had... like most, he took issue with the shady evidence and thinks that the war isn't being handled the way it should.

He's against Bush's war, and for his own - the way he thinks he could do it better. Right or wrong, it's not flip-flopping.

From what I heard, the war funding had a lot of negative riders that they put on daring people to vote against it and seem "unpatriotic".

meru · 08-24-2004, 12:47 PM

From the Daily Show:

STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?

CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.

STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.

CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story.

STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.

STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

STEWART: So, basically, you're saying that this back-and-forth is never going to end.

CORDDRY: No, Jon -- in fact a new group has emerged, this one composed of former Bush colleages, challenging the president's activities during the Vietnam era. That group: Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. They've apparently got some things to say about a certain Halloween party in '71 that involved trashcan punch and a sodomized piñata. Jon -- they just want to set the record straight. That's all they're out for.

STEWART: Well, thank you Rob, good luck out there. We'll be right back.

meru · 08-24-2004, 12:49 PM

LA Times:

Quote:

The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.

Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.

It must be infuriating to the victims of this process to be given conflicting advice about how to deal with it from the same campaign press corps that keeps it going. The press has been telling Kerry: (a) Don't let charges sit around unanswered; and (b) stick to your issues: Don't let the other guy choose the turf.

At the moment, Kerry is being punished by the media for taking advice (b) and failing to take advice (a). There was plenty of talk on TV about what Kerry's failure to strike back said about whether he had the backbone for the job of president — and even when he did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon enough. But what does Bush's acquiescence in the use of this issue say about whether he has the simple decency for the job of president?

meru · 08-24-2004, 12:58 PM

Paul Krugman (edited down considerably):

Quote:

One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.

How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.

After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.

As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam.

[snip]

Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"

[snip]

Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies - initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee - leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice count for nothing.

**Minstrel** · 08-24-2004, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tlong!
Do NOT vote for Kerry! He is a FRAUD! At least Bush is usually consistent in his actions. Kerry will say anything to get elected and has changed his position on issues so many times that one has no idea where he stands.

This is probably the main reason why Clinton said the Democrats win when people think. Conservatives mouth talking points with no understanding of reality. Those who think, realize that such repeated lies are hollow.

The idea that John Kerry was a "flip-flopper" in the Senate is patently deceptive. Every US Congressman could be painted as a "flip-flopper" because bills are a bit more complex than being "about healthcare" or "about building more tanks."

Bills also have these things called "riders" which are additional legislation that is tacked on to the original bill. If the bill goes through, the riders go through, too. The riders often have nothing to do with the original bill. They are attempts to make the bill more palatable to people who don't like the original bill.

Therefore, you could have two bills, offered up, say, five years apart.

One is a universal health care bill with no riders. Kerry votes for it.

The second is also a universal health care bill, but it has a rider for cuts in spending on education and a rider to starting logging in protected Alaskan wilderness. Kerry votes against this bill due to the riders.

Deceptive conservative media outlet (let's just call it FOX News, hypothetically) claims that Kerry "flip-flopped" on universal health care...first voting for it, then voting against it.

Anyone with some sense can see that that's clearly untrue. He voted for health care and then against cuts in education and damaging protected wilderness.

But because conservatives repeat their lies enough (most of them don't even know enough about our political system to understand that they're mouthing lies), it starts to become "common knowledge" that Kerry is a flip-flopper, when that's an uninformed contention. The conservatives have slogan-making and brainwashing via consistent repetition down to a science and handily outdo Democrats on that. That's why Democrats need people to think in order to win. They'll lose the brainwashed vote.

Iwatas · 08-24-2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Minstrel!

This is probably the main reason why Clinton said the Democrats win when people think. Conservatives mouth talking points with no understanding of reality. Those who think, realize that such repeated lies are hollow.

I think I know something of reality, and I am also someone who "thinks". My earlier post on this thread have come from no "talking points" -- I form my own opinion.

We just happen to think different things. That does not make either one of us stupid or unthinking. It just makes one of us incorrect.

Iwatas · 08-24-2004, 05:44 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../24/do2402.xml

Quote:

"of course" they support our troops even though they oppose this war. But in practice they "support our troop" – singular – just Lieut Kerry and the handful of Swiftees willing to appear in public with him. The rest can go to hell and any of 'em impertinent enough to question the Senator are just "sleazoids" wading through their own backed-up latrine. I wonder if the Kerry campaign and its media cheerleaders have really thought this one through.

Nothing the "sleazoids" say about Kerry is as bad as what he said about them 33 years ago in his testimony to Congress, when he informed the world that his comrades – his "band of brothers" – had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads" etc, throughout their time in Vietnam.

Unlike John O'Neill's book, he didn't bother to give specifics: the US Army in general was rife with ear-severers. If you want to know why Paul Galanti is appearing in an anti-Kerry ad, it's because he first heard about this speech from his Viet Cong captors who cited it to try to persuade him and his fellow prisoners that resistance was now futile and they might as well cross over to the other side.

Quote:

And even if he'd never slimed his comrades, there's something ridiculous about a fellow with four months in Vietnam running as Ike, the Duke of Wellington and Alexander the Great rolled into one. On Sunday, after calling on the Senator to apologise to the 2.5 million veterans he slandered, Bob Dole couldn't resist chipping in his own view of Kerry's wounds.

"Here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of," he said. "I mean, they're all superficial wounds." Dole's right arm is withered and useless from wounds received in World War Two, and he never made a big hoo-ha about it in the '96 campaign.

But, more significantly, Dole prizes bipartisan Senatorial chumminess over almost everything, and my guess is he wouldn't be slamming Kerry if he weren't so revolted by the unseemly showboating of this campaign. If Vietnam vets loathe him, World War Two vets seem to think he's a buffoon. Short of reversing over the last 128-year-old Spanish-American War veteran in the retirement home parking lot, it's hard to see how Kerry could more comprehensively diminish his military support.

Still, he's doing his best. After going around huffing and a-puffing that, if Bush wanted a debate about Vietnam, "Here is my answer: BRING. IT. ON," he's now gone to ground and is demanding Bush call it off. Meanwhile, his lawyers are threatening suits and the campaign's complained to the Federal Election Commission to get the Swift vets taken off air.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes