Anyone paying attention to this bullsh%t? Check this out:

A group of far-right Bush allies released an ugly and outrageous ad which claims that John Kerry faked his injuries, betrayed his troops, and "dishonored his country" in Vietnam. The ad features people who say "I served with John Kerry" (although they didn't) and who make numerous provably false accusations about Kerry's war record. It's one of the most vile tactics seen yet in Bush's ferociously negative campaign.

The "Swift Boat" ad is so far beyond the pale that even Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter, spoke out about it, calling it "dishonest and dishonorable." Yet despite Senator McCain's request that President Bush "specifically condemn" the ad, Bush refuses to say anything about it.

It's clear that the ad continues the tradition of Bush campaign dirty tricks. In a recent interview, Senator McCain noted that the ad "was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me" in 2000. McCain was referring to a vicious smear campaign -- which included race-baiting allegations that he had a black child our of wedlock -- run by close Bush allies in 2000. In fact, the same firm that ran some of the anti-McCain ads in 2000 produced the "Swift Boat" ad. And although the group claims to be independent of the Republican party, the group's funding mostly comes from a longtime Bush supporter who gave over $20,000 to his campaigns for Texas governor. Further, today it was announced that one of the subjects in the ad is a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans steering committee.

The "Swift Boat" campaign is a classical political hit job. But even before the ad went on the air, the Washington Post ran a piece discussing how President Bush is running the most negative presidential campaign in U.S. History. In an article titled "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," the Post quotes an expert who says that "there is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you've historically had in the general-election period against either candidate."

Discussing the "Swift Boat" ad, Senator John McCain said, "I deplore this kind of politics." Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns (R) called the ad "trash" and even Pat Buchanan said "not a single charge is substantiated... I think the ad is wrong." But George Bush won't condemn it.

Jim Rassman, a Republican veteran who served under Kerry, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. He told the story of how Kerry saved his life. And he concluded with these words on the "Swift Boat" veterans: "[W]hen the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform.

Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

Hey, Stinky

On Sept 5 (which in forum time is about 3 years ago), you mentioned Frank Thomas book Whats the Matter with Kansas? After I skimmed it at Barnes and Noble, I listened to the first part of a NPR show by Ira Glass that dealt with the book.

It turns out that the folks from Kansas dont think either party does them any economic good. So, they vote their moral values. And the Republicans values match better. The Democrats have themselves labeled as the most close-minded party.

I dont know about you but I am feeling kind of stifled by this election now. Very little good discussion from the candidates.

Plus, I wonder now: Is it War on Terror or are we in WW III?

Talk about the big gorilla that will smother any list of domestic issues! Vietnam was about supporting a country that had no self-government and never did. Will Iraq get one?

And what would you do about NAFTA? Thomas says Kansas people thanked Clinton for that one.

Last edited: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 5:17:42 PM

Morning! Just waking up...get to you soon jj....psst: nice post rabban!

'Take No Prisoners.'

Crow, that is some scary stuff. I could never imagine being drafted and help kill human beings. You would think after millions and millions of years of evolution we are still savage animals.

Last edited: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 7:20:11 PM

What you said is very interesting, Rabban:

Do you really? Why? I can think of several reasons, ranging from snide (higher thought = liberal thought) to realistic (a college's function is to provide instruction over a wide, or liberal, range of arts and sciences). But it seems to me that when I try to think of examples of conservative colleges, I mostly end up with those associated with religion (Oral Roberts U., Cedarville University, and so on).

JJ: I thought viet nam was about preventing communist expansion....

I think that is a fair synopsis of the situation in middle america...i didn't read the book, but I read a very condensed version frank wrote for harpers...it seems that the democrats are not really associated with the working class anymore. While the republican platforms are probably more antagonistic to working class people, the "values" related issues are more aligned. I don't know what the hell is wrong with the dems anymore.

Nafta was something bush the elder was working toward, but clinton pushed through. I have several bones to pick with unabashed globalism, as you know....chiefly because it devalues the work force everywhere. It sucks good paying jobs out of america. And on and on and on.

Stifled by this election? Me too. Its really discouraging. Can anyone honestly be wondering why so many people don't vote? I'm sick of the dam image control and spin. Nader is right.

Gun regulation: that is where greed comes into to the laissez faire model...business men are motivated only by profit margins. Period. Don't look for them to monitor themselves...it is the fox guarding the henhouse. Regulation exists because of the greed factor. Many times the republican slant is that regulation is "big government on my back". Actually, it is the government safeguards that are preventing big business from really f*cking over the citizenry. Enron is an obvious example of what happens in a capitalist scenario devoid of regulation. Bend over ma and pa...

Assualt guns? I think JB's example is as irrational as Rabban's. Both justify access to assualt weapons now, for some paranoid scenario which MAY unfold in the future...why are we allowing ourselves to be ruled by our fears?

Rabban: catch 22...i agree. I'm thinking about that some more and I'll respond later.

From a strictly sociological perspective, it's interesting what's happening to this thread. As the debate extends, two basic things are happening:
1) Conservative voices are disappearing
2) The breadth and depth of arguments disagreeing with or rejecting the Bush administration's position on nearly every issue [ Arms control, terrorism, the environment, education, unemployment, poverty, the economy, tax breaks for who?, Wmd, assault weapons, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, the Abu Ghraib disgrace, Swift Boat liars, health care, OBL ] is increasing, as are the number of people voicing these arguments.

Single individuals have to make a decision about their self-interests. Either they will choose themselves, respond to fear (Cheney's disgusting comments, a surprising moment of honesty) and vote for Bush, or they will choose the group and vote for the other guy. Hopefully, one day we will be able to accept that this is one world; pissing downstream doesn't mean that one day the river water won't be what you're catching in your mouth when the rain starts falling.

Ps. Nice posts g et al.
ps2. Again, what are we assaulting, exactly?

Last edited: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 8:22:23 PM

Ps3. I'm not able to see instances in the past 10 years wherein having an assault weapon in one's home would have improved a situation. Please inform.

Er, keep in mind that the whole "revolt against the government" bit about assault guns was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I'm not stocking up for a civil war and I am not not suggesting that others should start. I was just stating how incredibly limited the use of an assault gun by a civilian in his/her home nation is. They are designed for war.

I am finding the debate about the bias of news media quite an interesting read! Dammit, where can I find a media outlet that will spoon-feed me unbiased content so that I don't have to safeguard against being manipulated! :P If a human being is giving the news, there will be a some sort of bias. You just need to keep a variety so you get both sides.

Any opinions on Reuters? They seem to flip-flop depending on what news item they link, so I've been having good luck with them. They do tend to push the sensationalistic news a bit, though.

- BombJames Bomb

Come on, Tally! Sociological, nope.

You might have noticed that it's a little hard to express an opinion here if you aren't Kerry/Democrat/anti-conservative. A whole lot of tsk, tsk and little discussion.

The syncopation of arguments is raw. "Yes, yes, that is so true" stuff.

And the circular arguments! "It's a lie because it's wrong. It's wrong because it's a lie." Stinker has my best respect.

Peace. CY in the funny papers.

Final Edit.

Last edited: Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 2:50:18 AM

LOL! Take that tally!

JB: check. Thanks for the clarification and re "If a human being is giving the news, there will be a some sort of bias. You just need to keep a variety so you get both sides." I tend to agree with you here. I think that answers rabbans question too.

So what to do about it? Dunno. Start with some skepticism...and least be aware of the bias..i try to use multiple sources. I go with reputable mass media -- the folks who seem to have some journalistic integrity...i.e. NY Times, and Wash Pst, and then I go to sources with a heavy lefty slant...i.e. Truthout.com. With truthout.com, for example, I almost never bother to read their opinion pieces...i know it is gonna be partisan stuff. I look for articles the staff have gleaned from other papers. Truthout is clearly biased, I try to keep that bias in mind. But they are also independent and more likely to print things the big guys are too chickenshit to print. I also read harpers mag and z mag...both intellectual analysis in the liberal tradition, but both have high journalistic integrity. I keep in mind the bias, and I try to separate the facts from the conjecture.

Mass media is big business. Big business watches out for big business. Add to this formular conflict of interest (GE vs. NBC). But I think it is fair to say most journalists lean a tad to the left (following the liberal tradition of looking out for the populace). Its a tug of war....a classic class struggle...worker vs boss for control of the spin maybe.

Remember the lead up to the war? All major stations dropped most of their criticism and seemed to be dazzled by embedded journalists, and the cool technology...bush got a free ride. But when the war turned sour, all the major media turned on bush. With the exception of fox news. When it was popular to criticize the president, nbc, abc, cbs turned on him.

Bias? Maybe not...maybe just shlocky, crappy, lazy corporate media. Fox? Bias...they were enamoured at the lead up to war, and they continued to stump for the war and bush afterwords...clearly biased.

I think the answer is independent media with integrity....unfortunately, indy media is on the wane.

Ps rabban and jj here's that link: http://www.fact-index.com/f/fo/fox_news.html

Last edited: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 at 10:55:55 PM

Tally said

"Single individuals have to make a decision about their self-interests. Either they will choose themselves, respond to fear (Cheney's disgusting comments, a surprising moment of honesty) and vote for Bush, or they will choose the group and vote for the other guy. Hopefully, one day we will be able to accept that this is one world; pissing downstream doesn't mean that one day the river water won't be what you're catching in your mouth when the rain starts falling."

This is a good example of the differences in the way the liberal tradition and conservative tradition sees the world.

Do you think its your god given right to acquire as much wealth as possible regardless of the effects? Or do you think that the well being of the collective and stewardship of the planet are more important?

Please don't attempt to perpetuate the myth of the capitalist with the heart of gold in your responses. That crap is easily foisted onto sixth graders, but our history doesn't bear that out. Ours is a history of class struggle....well, until recently.

Back @ vietnam...

Why did we think we had the right to choose a form of government for VietNam? We did the sustaining because it was our idea, not theirs...

Why do we think we have the right to choose a form of government for the iraqis? We will do the sustaining because it is our idea, not theirs...

Its called hegemony. We want to preserve and expand ours...not a bad strategy, but it serves our own interests at the expense of theirs...

JJ: I'm on a roll...sorry

You said:You might have noticed that it's a little hard to express an opinion here if you aren't Kerry/Democrat/anti-conservative. A whole lot of tsk, tsk.

It seems to me quite easy to express any opinion here, I mean, people say the dumbest things. But, some ideas are clearly unpopular....republicanism/conservativism is kinda taking a beating...or so it seems. Actually, I think this is misleading... It is the policies of W ,and the subsquent defense of these policies in this forum that are taking a beating. My own interpretation of this is that his policies are hard to defend. They are hard to defend because they are motivated by a political philosophy that is not representative of the political philosophies of the populace. Bush's foreign policy is informed by neoconservativism, an imperialist idea that finds itself rightly under attack from both conservatives and liberals alike. His domestic policy is pro-business in matters of economics, and pro-religious right on matters of culture...that formula leaves a whole hell of a lot of us out of its equation.

I find W indefensible....this conclusion appears to be shared by the majority of posters here. Given this, I think that those who chose to defend him are finding it exceedingly hard to do so...which is why many of you are clinging to ideology and belief in lieu of reason and thought. The man is indefensible...

Rabban: please define "terrorists in iraq"

Are terrorists foreign fighters from syria and iran, and those sponsered by al qaeda? Or are they, for example, shiite milita men who want some say in determining their own political future?

"the brittish are coming, the brittish are coming" paul revere: freedom fighter or terrorist? Don't ask king george.

Why did I get take-that'd ? :)
Paul Revere: exactly :). Stink takes the bait, but what about the gentleman on our right?

Wow....postaliscious.

(Starting to read......)

Bush is a crazy man. Heck he can't even say nuclear, and that really scares me. He also is just a dumb@$$, because he did bad in school. If you go and sign up with atomfilms at www.atomfilms.com or it was www.atomsfilms.com, you can see did really funny movie with Kerry and Bush insulting each other. Go look!

-JudgeFreud (SA) Psycho doctor

Hand is UP!

I got a couple of questions regarding "media."

First tell me if my assumptions are are incorrect.

I assume that the "media" we read and see on TV are businesses. That they would not exist if they did not make money. That they make money by attracting readers and viewers and that the bulk of the money they make is through advertising. That the "slant" they take is to keep attracting viewers and readers who agree with that slant so they can make more money by selling more advertising. (Forget subscriptions, advertising is the life blood of most media.)

So if mainstream media is liberal is it because it is a reflection of the people who consume it? And since all major media outlets are free to take whatever slant they want, aren't they taking the slant of the majority of media consumers?

And the majority of higher institutions of learning are liberal too?

@JudgeFreud

Hey post the link to the movie so we can see it.

@weentank

Hey man killer site! Where did the cheese go brother?

To hell with catching up. Too much...so I'll just try and get back in the loop here.

@ Fleabiscuit

That's a well put together point.

What do you see when you look at a picture? Sure, you may be looking at the subject you want...but you are looking at it through the eyes of the photographer. You can't see it yourself...you weren't there when the picture was taken. SO - if you are to believe the picture, you have to have faith in the photographer. Did the photographer take a picture of a picture of the subject? Is the photographer really the true photographer? Is it possible the photographer conspired with the DNC to....sorry. Ignore that.

Seriously - you see what the producers and editors want you to see. Stinky nailed it a little while ago.....we watch who we watch because they serve up what we want to see. We have a problem with someone who serves up what we don't want to see....and call them the "liberal media" or "faux news" depending on what wing you're walking on.

As far as advertising....JB, OM, and JJ all have agreed at different points in these 400 posts that "sensation sells." If it weren't for the reality shows, the networks would be tanking anyway. No one watches the nightly news programs anymore....it is my opinion that that is why the "news magazine shows" (i.e. 20/20, Dateline...60 Minutes II) always sensationalize their packages. Seriously...is Laci Peterson's murder REALLY a story of national signifigence?

Real quick- gun control.

Who is responsible for gun crimes? The gun or the criminal?

We don't go outlawing cars that are capable of speeds in excess of the national speed limit.

We don't outlaw the sale of alcholic beverages at bars...where the only logical way home for some patrons is to drive.

I am looking for the MADD statistics regarding DUI deaths vs murders....can't find it. I am pretty sure it is going to say that DUI deaths surpassed...but I want to make sure the source is correct before I quote it.

Doesn't it make sense that if we enforced the gun laws that are currently in existence....that the net effect will be the same?

1.cars are designed to move you from here to there...guns are designed to kill
2.i can't hide a car in my back pocket
3.the assualt ban used to be a "gun law that (was) currently in existence".

But you make michael moores point: cars kill more people than guns do every year...so why aren't we more concerned about that?

I gotta stop staying away so long...I just about missed this.

@ Tally

Noooooo.....truthfully, they are the networks who ignored the story for several days...the papers were running with the story, commercials were airing on the radio. I actually thought it was funny as hell the way they were ignoring it.

What's even funnier is the same thing is going on now with the alledgedly (trying to be fair and balanced) falsified Bush TX ANG memos. Not as severely obvious - but it's still happening.

I also think it's curious how the networks are the first out to disprove the Swiftvets claims while they are the last out of the stall to prove the authenticity of the alledgedly falsified Bush memos. To me, this is pretty obvious; but then again I guess it all depends on who you're rooting for.

The chicks at Wal Mart won a case on less circumstantial data...if this kind of favoritism were going on at work we'd have enough of a case to file a hostile work environment claim.

Top 'o the morning to you stinky!!

1. Technically...guns are designed to shoot a projectile...the shooter designates the target. Same with a car....they don't drive themselves.
2. I don't get what #2 has to do with this. You can hide any weapon...you can also make a weapon of just about anything if your intent is to do harm. Remember McGyver?
3. I don't get # 3 either - did I say that?

Last edited: Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 7:07:38 AM

"Seriously - you see what the producers and editors want you to see. Stinky nailed it a little while ago.....we watch who we watch because they serve up what we want to see. We have a problem with someone who serves up what we don't want to see....and call them the "liberal media" or "faux news" depending on what wing you're walking on."
This is poor. Seems like an excuse to ban critical thinking. When I read the newspaper, I don't scan for the stories that agitate me, then clip them out and push them on the floor. If the-collective "your" only source of news is television, unplug the thing and discover the dead tree. It's not much better at times, but it's better. Can't decide between the liberal NYT and the conservative WSJ? Try both. As you said, "Seriously - you see what the producers and editors want you to see."

"Doesn't it make sense that if we enforced the gun laws that are currently in existence....that the net effect will be the same?"
No. That'll need some clarification - and statistics.

"I also think it's curious how the networks are the first out to disprove the Swiftvets claims while they are the last out of the stall to prove the authenticity of the alledgedly falsified Bush memos. To me, this is pretty obvious; but then again I guess it all depends on who you're rooting for."
That'll need some clarification - and citations.

Re: 1, 2 and 3.
Guns can't drive me to the store so I can buy milk.

Lastly, we aren't sheep. A large part of what goes on at network t.v. Is a response to how the audience responds to teasers and the stories that follow the first one [ See: Nightline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightline ]. Why that blew the doors off America and lost Carter the election while Bush dances on pinheads, walks on water, and turns saltine cracker and rotten fish into chocolate cake into is beyond me.

I can't freaking sleep. 3 weird-loud explosions in my neighborhood have me unsettled. Probably a car backfiring, mb some kids in the park with some poppers.

@ Tally

Me too. I had to pull a couple of long days earlier this week and my schedule has been screwed ever since.

Good point on the sheep aspect. I don't think any of us are sheep - we've made it plain that we get our news from various sources (for me it's Newsweek, Time, the local paper, MSNBC.com, foxnews.com, and Google News) - but I do think a good bit of America will eat whatever is served up. I believe it is a big reason why such obvious "spinning" from both parties seems to take traction.

Regarding the exisiting gun laws - this is only my opinion - that's why I phrased it as a question. There are laws on the books that make it difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns - I would think a stricter enforcement of those laws would have an impact (I'm referring to numerous situations where felons are paying people with clean records to purchase weapons for them...most get off with a fine).

Regarding the Swiftvets and Bush ANG memos - that'll take some research. I suppose Google and AP / UPI newswire searches might do it - unless y'all are okay with accepting a LexisNexis timeline. If you are I'll order it - will be 24 hours until I get it though.

Regarding your gun going to the store - the only way it's going is if you or someone else carries it there...the same as your car isn't going to drive itself there. Along the same lines....when a gun goes off, SOMEONE made a concious effort to pull the trigger, or else was handling it when it went off accidentally. This is exactly my point - would be kind of like making coffee illegal at McDonald's because some dumbass spills it on themselves.

On another note - this is more to everyone - I wouldn't assume that the opinions expressed here are necessarily representative of the country at large. I think there just happens to be more Democrats on this particular thread, or at least participating in it. I am actually participating in another discussion similar to this one on an industry related website...you fellows should be proud of yourselves. Y'all are making a heckuva lot more sense than those other guys are.

@ Judge Freud

Hey bro - in this thread you're going to have to cite your source. You're talking about a guy that carries a Harvard MBA.

@ Ge0rge

Not necessarily - try hillsdale.edu.

There are plenty more - will try and gather them up after work if you are seriously interested in the list.

@ stinky

You conservative devil you....except for #4, a little bit of 5, & 9 you 're a Republican. See ya at the club! Be sure to bring your butler with you.

My take on #10....regarding public companies, I agree with you big time. That is where the Sarbanes-Oxley Act comes into play....it doesn't get a whole lot of press, but I can personally attest to the fact that it has claimed a LOT of victims...i.e. People are getting canned.... Since it's inception.

If you're referring to a private company...I'd have to disagree. The day that a law is passed that tells me what to do with the profits from my business is the day I liquidate it, take my marbles, and go home. I'm pretty sure you'll find that the vast majority of small business owners will tell you the same.

This is a great point. In my opinion, the first ones are terrorists and the second set are insurgents - rebels if you will - you've also got to assume some are Baathists pissed that Saddam is gone. If the insurgents want to compare themselves with Paul Revere in 200 years, they had better get their shit together and get some more participants. A thousand men - 100 units of ten - can carry out what is going on now.

What they're doing now - bombing public places and killing civilians - is considered terrorism by the way.

Last edited: Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 10:01:45 AM

@Chief- I'm sorry, but your points on gun control aren't making any sense to me. You say "technically" a gun is designed to shoot a projectile, but the shooter designates a target. That seems like a rather irrelevant point to me. Also, a person can kill someone with many objects. You can kill someone with a pair of scissors, but we don't ban scissors because they have another more useful purpose. Same with steak knives. There are trained fighters out there that can kill someone with a rolled up newspaper, but we don't want to ban those.

But assault guns make it very easy to kill someone. No need to be specially trained to do it. Just aim in the general direction and pull the trigger bound to hit something.

And, by the way, I quote YOU here:

So, which is it then? Are they only to assault people with or do they serve some other more useful function?

Heh, and you fault Kerry for flip-flopping? :)

@ Om

I am referring to guns in general here - not specifically assault weapons.

I am simply going beyond the assualt weapon issue - I am simply trying to figure out at what point the law got away from personal responsibility.

Something in this thread set me off on gun control. We need to index the dang thing.....

OK Chief, I agree with you as I've noted before. People have a right to bear arms. No-one All I'm saying is that there does need to be some control over the extent of those arms. A hunting rifle or pistol is one thing. A machine gun is quite another, and I argue that there is no need for people to own those. If you allow assault rifles, where does it stop? Can I get a mini gun for home defense too? How about grenades or C4? Maybe I'm a demolition hobbyist. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy C4 over the counter? Where do you draw the line?

Considering that the ban was in place, and did not seem to be adversely affecting hunters or gun hobbyists, I really have to wonder why the ban was not continued. And I say again, Bush has stated that he supported it! Why didn't he even make an attempt to continue it? Was he so absorbed in the reelection that he couldn't take some time to push this ban to pass again? Puzzling and frustrating.

But I agree, maybe this whole gun control issue is the subject for another thread, eh?

Okay just click this website, and then you can see the hit show called This Land, starring Bush and Kerry!!
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave. jsp?id=this_land&preplay=1&ratingBar=off

It should work if not I'll find another way.

Okay just click this website, and then you can see the hit show called This Land, starring Bush and Kerry!!
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.
jsp?id=this_land&preplay=1&ratingBar=off

Okay this should work!!!!! Or just copy and paste it

Okay this time I got it just click here or copy this:
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/this_land_af

-JudgeFreud (SA) Psycho doctor

@Chief: I don't have a problem with people owning a pistol. As long as they are responsible with the thing (trained, locked up, etc), then it is arguably a useful device. Your average punk thief will think twice when he hears in the next room: "ka-click! Get out." An assault rifle is not necessary.
Hell, with some of the crap that's been going on in California here, I'm starting to wonder why the after-hours female joggers aren't packing for protection.
Rapist: Drop your pants
ka-click!
Jogger: No. Wet yours.

Once again, an assault rifle is not needed. Then there was the time that this mad dog went after this guys kid in his front yard. Blam. Saved his kid (don't know what the hell was up with the dog. That's unusual for a dog to attack like that.)

So, yah, I support right to bear arms. But lets keep it reasonable!

Oh, you mentioned that Stinky's list makes him a Republican. Nah, he's an even mix. That happens when you think for yourself. But, mind telling me how #3(environment) and #7(alternate energy source) could POSSIBLY make him a Republican. That's textbook Green Party, actually. (heh, he's a mixture of THREE parties!) I'm assuming you just missed that one.

- BombJames Bomb

@ OM

Regarding this - in all honesty I think he let it lapse as a nod to the NRA (I never said the guy wasn't a politician).

Maybe after we wear this subject out we can take on arms control - in general.

@ JB

I know - I was actually trying to see if Stinky was awake yet......although I think we all share more views than we realize.

"Regarding this - in all honesty I think he let it lapse as a nod to the NRA (I never said the guy wasn't a politician)."
Duplicitous stuff.

@ Tally

In what way? Name a President and there are agendas. Unfortunately, it's politics as usual - irregardless of whether it's Kerry or Bush.

I trust everyone's noticed that I have never presented an argument regarding Bush's energy policies.

How is it duplicitous? You've made numerous posts defending Bush's position of allowing the assault weapon ban to end that have ranged from preventing home-soil jihad to comparing the safety record of assault weapons to motor vehicles.
In fact, you "honestly" feel that allowing the lapse was a nod to the NRA. That latter revelation makes your comments duplicitous, "Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech."
Others will extend this leit-motif to other sections and debates of this thread and to the Bush administration itself.

Preventing forest fires by chopping down the trees? Or a "nod" to logging
WMD, anyone? Or a "nod" to hawks, oil, industry and defense.

God bless moments of honesty.

BTW: The war in iraq is his energy policy.

Wow, you guys really get crankin' while I'm asleep!
Chief: I think maybe I'm progressive...you know....a little like prescott bush? Back in the day, members of both parties were....now? Its only most of the dems, most of the independents, and the pat buchanan camp? (tongue in cheek).

I'm reading "the right nation"...a new sociological-historical account of the rise of conservative power in america. Its authors are a couple of brits...its an amazing read. In the early going, what is striking me is how far right the conservatives have gone since eisenhower...the early conservatives seemed pretty rational, and thought of themselves as progressives...prescott bush gave mccarthy a fierce tongue lashing for his commie baiting....i can't imagine george w giving dick cheney the same business for his fear mongering...

I lost my party 10 years ago or so....but it occurs to me, many of you moderate, progressive conservatives have also lost yours....doncha think?

And

It is duplicity...it is dishonesty. It is precisely this cynical dishonesty that the bush admin. Regularly engages in that turns my stomach. Good call tally.

Nooooo not this again!!!

@ stinky

I agree - but I guess we all have to take what we can get - LOL.

@ Tally

I thought I made it clear that I was discussing arms control in general - I apologize if I wasn't clear. That's why I said what I said earlier - I am pro-gun but anti-assualt weapon.

@ All

I have a tough 4 days ahead of me - won't be able to check back in until Saturday night.

Until then!

Not clear at all, and not really supported by your posts I don't think.
Anyway, toodles sparring partner, see you in 4.

From the guardian:

Last edited: Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 10:32:24 PM

Stink, I thought about posting this news earlier today when I read it. I refrained originally, but since you did

Here's a CNN link: Iraq prospects bleak Pretty depressing read, but unfortunately, what I always suspected. Can anyone (besides warped-sense-of-reality Bush) really say this war is going well?

Last edited: Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 10:42:47 PM