Forums Index >> General >> Swift Boat Veterans for Bush
Page : 1 . . . . . 11 : 12 : <13> : 14 : 15 . . . . . 18
Iraq?
And why did ms. Whitman resign?
Dereg is not on the presidential platforms. I keep falling asleep while reading the platforms though.
And, yes, this whole business about big corporations controlling media is loopy. Those corps don't want legal action, of the type the FCC is going to get CBS for, most likely (fraud). Otherwise, just keep those ratings up, just spell the names right, sensation, sensation, sensational...
All this cajoling is tiring. Tomorrow, Bird Legs.
Try and pick a point.
Last edited: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 at 1:52:02 AM
Platform? Slippery aren't you..i'm not talking about platforms...or talking points...i'm talking about policy...bwock bwock chicken!!!
Iraq, anyone? Anyone manly enuff to defend this? Thought not...
Take your first shot, farm boy.
What is it about Iraq that you enjoy.
Negotiation for the point comes first, BTW.
And do try to be succinct for once. :)
Last edited: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 at 11:47:56 AM
Of course, if you're bush, you can always hire an FCC chair who can pretend to regulate:
January 21, 2003 Chairman Powell writes an op-ed in USA TODAY "The time has come to honestly and fairly examine the facts of the modern marketplace and build rules that reflect the digital world we live in today, not the bygone era of black-and-white television."
"Joe Friday knew that only the facts would help him unravel a case. It is the same with this critically important FCC policy review. Only the facts will enable us to craft broadcast-ownership restrictions that ensure a diverse and vibrant media marketplace for the 21st century."
January 30, 2003 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on media ownership - L. Lowry Mays (Clear Channel), Edward Fritts (National Association of Broadcasters), Don Henley (Recording Artists Coalition), Robert Short (Short Broadcasting), and Jenny Toomey (Future of Music Coalition) testify.
February 3, 2003 Thirty Congressmen sign a letter to Chairman Powell criticizing the FCC for not adequately publicizing the media ownership debate and rushing the rules-changing process to favor major media outlets.
February 17, 2003 The Project for Excellence in Journalism releases a five-year study of local television news, "Does Ownership Matter in Local Television News?" They found that TV stations owned by smaller media firms generally produce better newscasts; are better at local reporting; produce longer stories ; and do fewer softball celebrity features. The study concludes that... "Changes that encourage heavy concentration of ownership... In local television... By a few large corporations... Will erode the quality of news Americans receive."LA Times, February 17, 2003 - "Smaller Stations Fare Better in Local TV News," by Edmund Sanders, )
February 27, 2003 FCC holds its only official public hearing on media ownership rules in Richmond, VA. Chairman Powell and the other four commissioners make statements, panels discuss diversity, competition, and localism. Panelists include television and radio executives, journalists, academics, union representatives, media advocacy groups, and economists. (Press release, program, and presentations)
March 19, 2003 Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) write a letter to Chairman Powell calling for a broader public debate in the FCC's media ownership review. ("Senators Want Input on Media Rules," Mediaweek.com)
April 1, 2003 A group of lawmakers write to FCC Chairman Powell urging him to keep to his proposed schedule to present the ownership rules decision by June 2, 2003. (Read the full letter, signed by Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., Sen. John Breaux, Reps. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., John Shimkus, R-Ill., Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., Mary Bono, R-Calif., George Radanovich, D-Calif., and Pete Sessions, R-Texas, and Sens. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., John Ensign, R-Nev., and George Allen, R-Va.)
June 2, 2003 The FCC revised its limits for broadcast ownership (read Media Ownership Rule Changes) but multiple parties appealed this decision. The cases were consolidated and assigned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which stayed the effective date of the new rules.
July 23, 2003 The House voted 400-21 to approve a spending bill that included a provision to block the FCC decision to allow major television networks to own up to 45% of the country's viewers. The Bush administration has voiced opposition to the attempt to rescind the FCC ruling.
September 3, 2003 A federal appeals court in Philadelphia issued an order blocking the rule changes from taking effect. (Read the ruling.)
September 4, 2003 The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a spending bill that contained a provision that would effectively block the ownership rule changes.
September 16, 2003 Congress introduced a "resolution of disapproval" to nullify the new FCC rules which passed in the Senate 55-40 (with overwhelming bipartisan support); however, Republicans in the House have vowed not to pass the legislation. Read the resolution.
October 8, 2003 NBC said it would purchase the entertainment arm of Vivendi Universal for $3.8 billion. See what the "Big Six" own now.
November 5, 2003 A letter signed by 208 members of Congress is sent to House Speaker Dennis Hastert requesting the full House be allowed to consider the resolution of disapproval passed in the Senate on September 16, 2003. Read the letter.
November 24, 2003 In a last minute deal Senate Republican leaders and the White House compromised on the TV station ownership cap. It was increased just enough to allow Viacom and News Corporation to keep all their stations (39% limit).
December 8, 2003 - January 22, 2004 Omnibus spending bill incorporating the ownership cap adjustment passed first by the House on December 8, 2003, and by the Senate on January 22, 2004.
January 6, 2004 At the Smith Barney Citigroup Global Entertainment, Media and Telecommunications Conference, Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom remarks that "2004 will be a breakout year for Viacom." Media reporters speculate that 2004 will be a year of mergers.
January 28, 2004 The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") released its tenth annual report on competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. The report examines the status of competition, discusses changes that have occurred in the competitive environment over the last year, and describes barriers to competition that continue to exist. The FCC released the report at an open meeting in San Antonio, Texas.
January 29, 2004 The Consumer's Union released its new national survey of where people turn for local news. The survey found "newspapers are more than twice as important a source than the Federal Communications Commission determined when it relaxed its media ownership rules."
February 11, 2004 The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled a hearing for this date to decide if and when the FCC's decision will take effect. (Read the brief.)
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html
Emasculate the regulators...one more reason to hate bush.
Lol! Ball's in your court sleepy. And are you pretending to enforce high school debate regulations in this forum? Silly forensic goose! Do your thing...i'm giddy in anticipation.
Ps..where'd everyone go?
Negotiation for the point? I'm asking you to defend policy...defend the policy regarding the decision to go to war with iraq. That's all. Get some sleep first...'sides, I'm at work. Leave me alone for a while.
Policy shmolicy. Did you see him with that bullhorn?
May I take a shot at defending policy? (I'll try to keep it succinct for you JJ).
1. Preemptive war on iraq -- Fight the terrorists over there, instead of over here.
2. Enron setting national energy policy -- A simple, balanced request for information and insight on an issue from all sides.
3. Clear skies initiative -- It's in the spirit of Kyoto. And, something is better than nothing.
4. Tax cuts during war time -- Two words: trickle down.
5. Backing out of Kyoto -- We got Clear Skies. We're special.
6. Stem Cell Research -- Protecting the 'Possibility of Life' trumps 'Improving existing Lives'. Besides, there's plenty of stem cell lines to be used without creating more.
Last edited: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 at 8:57:21 AM
Fight the temptation Stink -- don't let rip just yet.
@JJ
I've got you started. Pick one. Disagree with me. Agree with me. Defend a policy. Something. Anything.
Stink and fo fo, you're wasting your time with JJ. See, JJ owns or works (not exactly sure which) for a big company. He basically told me so many moons ago. It's most likely in his best interest to support Repubs. It doesn't look like he'll ever disagree with them, as long as he has something to gain.
Ain't that right JJ? Come clean on it. What exactly do you do for a living?
@ Stink
School debate regs! Oh, man. Nope, just trying to keep you at one spot, Holmes.
@ 44
Are you going to defend policy? Am I reading that right?
You need to vet your list too. You already got a little built-in tilt in some of them.
Might I suggest that you try just Iraq? A "preemptive" war on Iraq "?
No, preemptive doesn't work for me. Not on Iraq.
@ OM
The big business conspiracy? Again?
Last edited: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 12:59:39 AM
Well then, please defend Bush's policies. I haven't really seen you do it yet. Tell me JJ, what do you see in Bush? I really want to know why you support him. You're an intelligent person, that's obvious. You can't like him for his brains, can you? Is it his stand on terrorism? What it is that you like about him? Or is it that you can't stand Kerry so you play the opposite role of people like us demmies?
Pray tell
@ JJ
Sorry I've been MIA bro - work jumped up and bit me in the ass and I had to pull a -z-. I have a little bit more to finish up and then I intend to pull and "Ahnold".
Should I try and catch up or just jump in here??
@ All
Until then - a little bit of reading material for the Dems. Apparently the "shoulda woulda couldas" are already flying around.
"Where Kerry Went Wrong"
Kerry and Shrum got it backward. If they'd sliced up Bush this summer, they could have used the debates to seem presidential
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Sept. 27 issue - After Labor Day, the political calendar goes into a time warp. Everything speeds up. With voters finally starting to pay attention, a week is about the equivalent of a normal month in political time. In late October the intensity can be so great that creative campaigns sometimes accomplish in a single day what it might once have taken three months to imprint on the minds of the voters. We don't know yet if we'll see such inventiveness this year, which means that for all of the weeping and moaning and rending of garments by despondent Democrats, we simply don't know if John Kerry is finished. We do know that his strategy so far, designed by Bob Shrum, lies in ruins, and for reasons that go far beyond the campaign's failure to respond quickly enough to the Swift Boat ads.
Shrum's grand plan wasn't complicated. He figured that with most voters believing the country is on the "wrong track," all that Kerry had to do was establish his credibility as a potential commander in chief and he would winhence the "bio" convention. No need to respond directly to Bush ads sliming him for wanting to cut the same weapons systems that Bush's father cut. No need to explain how the Iraq war had been botched. No need to discredit Bush at all, because he was already thoroughly discredited.
Oh, well. The Shrum strategy was the product of short-term thinking (the assumption that Bush's unpopularity in the period of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal would last until fall) and was reinforced by the sealed and often smug world of Democratic politics, where it was taken for granted that Bush was bad, bad, bad, and any reasonable person already knew why. Shrum correctly realized that a Michael Moore-style sledgehammer would do little to sway undecided voters who don't loathe Bush. But Shrum wrongly extrapolated from that point that Kerry had no need to indict Bush in easy-to-remember phrases that would stick. He once told me as much, and that name-calling wouldn't work in post-9/11 presidential politics.
That was wishful thinking. Politics has always been a contact sport where the winning team is the one that pins the kick me sign on the other guy. This is especially true in a race involving an incumbent. Focus groups always tell consultants that they're turned off by negative campaigning. It sounds good and makes them feel virtuous, but it's not true. Except in multicandidate races like the Democratic primaries, where voters can reject both the attacker and the attacked in favor of a third choice, the edge always goes to the predator over the victim. Americans like their candidates tough, especially during a war.
So Kerry and Shrum got the strategy exactly backward. If Kerry had used sticky language and cut-through-the-clutter ads to slice up Bush over the summer, he could have used the debates to seem positive and presidential. This is what Reagan did in 1980 against Jimmy Carter. He attacked him every day, then, with Carter discredited, left it to the debates for voters to say, "This other guy will do."
With his strategy in tatters, Kerry must now discredit Bush and simultaneously sell his own vision. This will be difficult for a candidate for whom straightforward English is often a second language. But it's hardly impossible, especially with Iraq melting down. The key is to focus less on the past9/11 is Bush's ace in the holeand more on the present and the future, with a focus on the visceral and personal: Where's bin Laden? We've got him neither dead nor alive. Will your sons and daughters be sent off to fight in a second Bush term? You've got health insurance now, but will you lose it soon? Nailing Bush means painting a big "F" for failure on his forehead for what's going on right now, then pivoting to explain in the simple terms that have eluded Kerry what he would do differently in the months ahead: Give reconstruction contracts to allies in exchange for helping us stabilize Iraq. Set a date certain for getting out of Iraq. Promise we'll never have another Iraq. Fight terrorism where it threatens us most, which is not in Iraq.
Can all of Kerry's qualifiers, gaffes and flip-flops on Iraq be finessed with a KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) strategy? Yep. That's the magic of general elections, where 50 million likely voters are just tuning in. With a few choice one-liners, the onus of responsibility can be placed back where it belongson Bush. Ripping off the GOP's 1994 "Contract With America" would also help. (Comment from Chief - "our ideas don't appear to be working so let's use some of theirs"...gotta love it) Voters needs to know four or five simple things that Kerry and the Democrats would do immediately. As the clock winds down, the odds against a Kerry victory grow longer every day. But a day can be enough in politics, for those who can fight and KISS at the same time.
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039027/site/newsweek/
Escape velocity attained >>> air very thin >>> passing out >>> wake me up in november
( or after the debates: MEMO TO ALL. WATCH THEM, FOR SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION WILL FOLLOW. NO EXCUSES )
Chief, we are waiting for Stinker and 44 to light on an actual something.
Tally's brain jar is flying skyward and out.
Chief, please note that Stinker does not like bush-haters that shout and leave now:
Payback? Aimed at whom? The ranting bush-haters that come in for a shout and then leave, I suppose. That's fair. Take a shot at them. I was confused because I thought you dumbed down your posts because reason and logic failed you...but I guess that hasn't happened...yet.
<<<< from page 12. Good prose and good quote from Newsweek.
Last edited: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 1:00:48 AM
Giggle puss, you gonna attempt to defend bush's iraq adventure, or keep spinning it off? Are you waiting for Chief to take a stab at it?
As I said, I don't blame anyone for not attempting a defense...bush is indefensible.
OM..most republicans can't see beyond their own personal gain...i agree.
44: I don't think they want anything to do with this "debate." all the "reasonable" republicans gave up on this forum and hauled ass...went and bought assualt rifles, brought their kids to private schools, cut down some redwoods, built a walmart, and drilled for oil in yellowstone. They're laughing all the way to the bank...meanwhile JJ is feverishly trying to find inspiration to defend irrational policy by rational means...the stress is driving him to the bottle I guess.
Should we let him off the hook?
Heh, JJ you're funny. You continue to talk in circles using witty little quips, taking jabs at us, but provide no real substance in any of your posts. Yet you continue to attempt to take us to task for ours. Is it that you can't answer why you support Bush? As stink says, I don't blame you. The man is indefensible after all.
I'm still waiting to hear what you like about him 8 hours and counting
JJ has definitely given up on decorum...been a much nastier JJ these past couple of days.
Like a cornered rat
@ All
While I am catching up on my required reading - am I the only one that hasn't had time to play TT lately due to work and this thread??
No...i second that. Should we give this up? Someone start another clever thread...what do you say?
I mean, take a look...no one in here anymore but about 6 stubborn numbskulls...wat you say, we just all agree NOT to vote for the moron, and put this to rest? Lets all go over to hanksta's FULL GAME thread and talk about what baddasses we are in our cartoon tanks, and how everyone else can kiss our asses... Eh? Any takers?
LOL Stinky
(deep breath)
Okay - I have decided to go back in time to Sept 19th, as y'all have just touched on too much good stuff to pass up. The posts I reference here start OM's of Sunday, September 19, 2004 at 10:20:46 PM
@ OM
VAIW ain't exactly objective - maybe try CBS? On second thought - never mind. You nailed Haster though...but for his answer, as I think we can all agree it is an assumed fact that Al Queda would like to take a lick at the US pre-Nov. 2nd.
Kerry has no one but himself to blame for opening himself up for Hastert's comment by making his "kindler gentler war on terror" speech.
@ stinky
RE: Iraq having WMD's 'cause the US gave said WMD's to them
This needs to be looked at in the context of the time period. The US was simply countering the USSR's backing of Iran....although Saddam did play both sides of the fence. If you're going to throw rocks about this issue - be sure not to miss JFK (missiles in Turkey).
@ stinky
Thanks for the truthout link and well wishes. It's a really interesting site and I plan to keep reading it at home.....I got so caught up in reading the material there that I forgot what I was looking for in the first place.
I did get to read the Chomsky article entitled "The Resort to Force". Here's an excerpt:
In February 2004, Russia carried out its largest military exercises in two decades, prominently exhibiting advanced WMD. Russian generals and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that they were responding to Washington's plans "to make nuclear weapons an instrument of solving military tasks," including its development of new low-yield nuclear weapons, "an extremely dangerous tendency that is undermining global and regional stability,... Lowering the threshold for actual use." Strategic analyst Bruce Blair writes that Russia is well aware that the new "bunker busters" are designed to target the "high-level nuclear command bunkers" that control its nuclear arsenal. Ivanov and Russian generals report that in response to US escalation they are deploying "the most advanced state-of-the-art missile in the world," perhaps next to impossible to destroy, something that "would be very alarming to the Pentagon," says former Assistant Defense Secretary Phil Coyle. US analysts suspect that Russia may also be duplicating US development of a hypersonic cruise vehicle that can re-enter the atmosphere from space and launch devastating attacks without warning, part of US plans to reduce reliance on overseas bases or negotiated access to air routes.
Waaaaaaiit a minute. Is this the same Russia that has to borrow from Peter to pay Paul? The same Russia whose nuclear arsenal lying around unsecured because they can't pay the guards...who can't pay Kazakhistan the rent for their space complex? Although I seem skeptical, I am very pleased with their latest weapon and am anxiously awaiting it's deployment.
@ stinky and JJ
You guys are funny as hell!!!! Sorry I missed that. "I'll take 'Wal Marts Wal Marts Everywhere' for $1000, Pat."
My only comment - at least so far - on the Enron subject. Apparently, big govenrment wasn't needed to bring Enron under control. Capitalism took care of that....where is Enron today? Oh - and I'm pretty sure those energy traders will be asking you "paper or plastic" at a Piggly Wiggly in your area soon. As far as Lay being a political supporter of Bush? Check this story out: "S. Korean who met Kerry aides was a spy" What is it with the Democrats and Indochina?? Remember Clinton / Gore's ties to China? True...unsupported by fact - as are allegations that Halliburton runs US energy policy. The link? Suspected - true. Proof - none.
I'm not familiar enough with the Kyoto Accord to comment on it - all I know is that my canned cheese no longer flies from the can. It kind of oozes like a an old dog craps.
@ fo fo
I'm going to let my magic 8-Ball choose one for me?
Magic 8-Ball says: "Rather Still Believes TX ANG Memos are True"
Well....how about that??? Okay - let me pick one: Tax Cuts During War Time. It's pretty simple - the economy needed additional stimulus...many think due to the liberal media's downplaying of it's improvement to date and Kerr's "the sky is falling" campaign of the second quarter (WHAT??!! We only created 120,000 jobs???? That's not enough!!!) A growing economy creates growing taxable revenue (for those that pay taxes and don't live their lives on the gov't tit - professional welfare, etc). Therefore - there is no net loss as long as the economy grows - as it now continues to do so at a record rate.
@ the Ho
MEMO TO ALL. WATCH THEM, FOR SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION WILL FOLLOW. NO EXCUSES
I agree completely. Unfortuntaely, I kind of see this mud slinging getting worse before it gets better. Kerry's gotten nasty not because it's smart...he's kind of like the losing boxer late in the match, furiously throwing punches hoping onme of them lands (the last one was the CBS memos). If you think it's nasty now, wait until October.
@ JJ
I would love to watch stinky write on of these posts where he gets all wound up. I'll bet he buys his mice by the gross. :)
@ stinky
." all the "reasonable" republicans gave up on this forum and hauled ass...went and bought assualt rifles, brought their kids to private schools, cut down some redwoods, built a walmart, and drilled for oil in yellowstone.
LOL. I was looking for something to do with my spare time.
I still want to give Hanksta some shit though. You're landing them left and right over there.
Wink wink chief!!!
From assualt rifles to vokdka? Hilarious!
Not buying into your polly-anna reading of the economy btw...doesn't seem supported by actual events...record growth! Have you no shame? C'mon...
Truthout does have a lot of goodies...but it has a lot of knee jerk liberal reactionary crap too...fortunately, you can tell by the titles and avoid them i.e. "bush steals money from orphans to purchase hitlers smoking jacket on ebay" and so forth...
And you couldn't help but mention the "liberal press." although with rather's untimely guffaw...it makes you wonder about certain aspects, don't it?
And you implied a kerry connection to the above...silly goose. Can't wait for the debates...should be a real scream!
(the last one was the CBS memos)
Gee, I love how you leap to the conclusion that Kerry's camp had something to do with those memos, yet, if we make the same leap about Bush's camp being involved in the Swift boat ads, you conservies jump all down our throats. As of yet, I have not seen any evidence that Kerry had anything to do with them. If you know of some proof, I'd love to see it.
Oh, and as for my VAIW link, I never claimed it was objective. Hence my 'start here as a jumping point' comment. I never claimed it should be used as an unbiased source. Please don't put words in my mouth.
However, agreed about Al Qaeda wanting to make some noise by Nov. 2. Security in the US better be as tight as hell before election day.
Stinker, you taking me to task for decorum? You, Miss Manners? Seriously, I thought you would buckle down for a little ideological jousting, not ramp up to this. Be sweet, sunshine.
And OM, come on. I know you're really a pretty gentle spirit.
Last edited: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 1:09:41 PM
BTW, Chief, I thought you'd like the one about Walmart since you're a Southerner. Weren't Walmarts arriving in some small towns thereabouts a big thing ?
As for Iraq: The idea was right, things are getting frayed, it's not over yet...
JJ, right wing religious zealot, follows Tally into the ozone.
Last edited: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 4:26:27 AM
JJ...ramp up to what? Ah, screw it...
Stinker, lefty idealist, following jj and tally into the ozone.
Fantastic tally
After seeing the above...Chief, you're losing credibility dog.
I can muster the giddy up for 2 examples. Or 3.
1. "Missiles in Turkey" kept missiles out of Cuba. Maybe I missed the context. Not sure what the relevance is. If Bush was at the helm during the cuban missile crisis, I reckon the majority of our appearances would closely bacon.
----------
2. """My only comment - at least so far - on the Enron subject. Apparently, big govenrment wasn't needed to bring Enron under control. Capitalism took care of that....where is Enron today?""""
You must be kidding, right? This is a joke? This is camera obscura dog, this is reality turned upside-down. It's borderline insulting that you'd try and slide that by.
----------
3. """@ the Ho
MEMO TO ALL. WATCH THEM, FOR SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION WILL FOLLOW. NO EXCUSES
I agree completely. Unfortuntaely, I kind of see this mud slinging getting worse before it gets better. Kerry's gotten nasty not because it's smart...he's kind of like the losing boxer late in the match, furiously throwing punches hoping onme of them lands (the last one was the CBS memos). If you think it's nasty now, wait until October."""
It's a tangled web yee weave.
""""I'm not familiar enough with the Kyoto Accord to comment on it - all I know is that my canned cheese no longer flies from the can. It kind of oozes like a an old dog craps."""
A simple statement, but so sad, so american.
Well this thread is officially in the #2 spot for longest in PTT history. Whoo hoo! Think we can take #1 by Nov.2?
@JJ- Come on? OK, where're we goin'? Truthville perhaps? Nah, that would never happen with you right? Once again, you make little remarks with no meat to them.
But wait a minute, what's this?
As for Iraq: The idea was right, things are getting frayed, it's not over yet...
Hmm, OK, so you think it was right, eh? What was right about it? How about a little more? Come on, I know you can do it.
If you're going to keep making statements with no explanation of your stance, I'll keep calling you on it. You have no one to blame but yourself. Either give us some reasons why you support Mr. Shrub, and the Iraq war, or live with the fact that I have no choice but to assume you have no defense or reasoning behind your beliefs. Or maybe you just don't want to fess us about your real reasons? Need to support that 'war for oil' to keep that SUV running perhaps?
Tally's back? They all come back...
Pas moi.
Argumentation doth require a more calmer hand, OM. This is 3 stooges debate. Nyuck nyuck. Eye gouge, nose pull, clunk with wrench on the head.
Quarreling and arguing or debating are different.
You will probably respond with: the Republicans do it, quarrel and rant. Hmm. All politicians do it. It is their war. In a way, I think, the electorate are like victims in a drive-by.
I ain't got the energy to play Wheel of Misfortune right now. Additionally, I am supposed to be behaving with decorum while you guys go ape. That takes even more energy.
Otherwise I would say something like: "Tally, I respect your intelligence and your wonderful word sense, but your last comment on the Kyoto Accord is just stupid in light of what the Kyoto legislation said and was. Have the grace not to comment. And your inability to distinguish between a comedy routine and real issues probably says more about your political judgment than you realize." That would start another ball rolling...
I would prefer to respect his time and give him the benefit of the doubt.
I have enjoyed the insights from all of you. I have learned about the election issues. You all are like the bloggers who collect and sort the huge mass of information that the politicians and media produce, and who have provided better insight into the election process than ever before.
JJ, the right wing religious zealot, goes back to the funny papers...
Last edited: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 8:43:05 PM
Well OK then. All I'm trying to do is understand your view on why Bush is a good president, but you don't seem to want to express that. Very well then.
I'm sorry that you see that as argumentative. Despite my comments, I actually do believe you are a smart and thoughtful person. Don't forget, we've corresponded in the past, so I have at least a little insight into you. I thought you
of all people would be able to give me some solid reasons why you support him. But alas it looks like that won't happen. Too bad.
@ All
Why I voted for GW - it took me half an hour to find this previous post....
@ stinky
Fantastic post!
In all honesty, other than the Clitnon-related issues, I voted for Bush in 2000 because from what I read I felt like he had done a good job as governor of Texas. It has always been my opinion that Reagan set up the economic boom of the '90's and that Clinton took credit for it....in the grass roots industry I was in at the time (transportation), I was well into feeling the effects of the recession - it actually started for us in early 1999 (one reason why I got out of that industry). So, I felt like a Republican was necessary in the White House to re-align those economic policies.
I will vote for him again this year primarily due to his handling of the War on Terror. I guess that's one big difference that I just caught - I think the Bush Administration sees this as truly a war. I just don't get that vibe from Kerry or whom I perceive his team would be post 01/2005. I get more of a "it's a crime" vibe. I also truly believe that the tax cuts he pushed through single-handedly revived this economy. I see it every day - small businesses are acquiring equipment and hiring people to operate the equipment because of it.
Did you know, that this is now the second longest thread?
Looking for a handy crib sheet of "simple, easy-to-remember statements" on characterizing the present President and his record? I got this list from my a doctor friend of mine, so I'm not sure of her source.
Things you have to believe to vote for Bush:
1. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
2. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
3. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
5. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
10. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
11. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
12. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
13. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
14. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
15. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
16. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
17. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
18. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
OK, so the list gets a little out there on a few points, but what I am sure about is that still leaves about 15 excellent ones! BTW, how many of the points above sound like flip-flopping? Or do I misunderstand the term when I think it applies to "an inconsistency in stance"???
No, I didn't think I misunderstood at all, either. And as far as that "acquiring equipment and hiring people to operate the equipment" line, where the hell do the Hoover (Maytag) and Timken companies, two of NE Ohio's largest manufacturing employers, fit into your assessment, Chief? Their (former) employees are the ones you may have heard about that had to pack their own equipment to ship overseas! This isn't some case where I read an article and it made me upset. I know these people!
Last edited: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 at 4:24:28 PM
Hehe. Good list George. You forgot one though.
19. The US should not be involved in 'nation-building', unless it is a Middle Eastern country with vast amounts of oil.
@Chief, I remember your reasons for supporting him, even though I disagree with most of it. Still, at least you know why you do. I've been prodding JJ (maybe a little too much) to give me his reasons, but he's a little shy I guess.
Good stuff
Great list Ge0rge - although I think there may be more than one or two that are a little out there.
Regarding the plants closing in your area - man, I hate to hear that. Several counties in this region of SC have unemployment above the national average...a couple are upwards of 20%. Those counties were pretty much rural counties where a couple of large manufacturers (Russell Stover, Georgetown Steel) decided to locate due to the plentiful relatively cheap labor force and (what was at the time) a lack of union presence. Unfortunately, the workforce decided to unionize in the '90's and then proceeded to eventually negotiate their contract until the company couldn't afford to pay them anymore.
The very same thing is going on with the NHL as we speak. I hope y'all have some games taped boys - or have access to an AHL or ECHL team.
Just out of curiousity - and I am pretty sure I know the answer - were Hoover and Timken union shops?
As far as how they fit into my assessment - they actually don't. I was referring to small businesses whose revenue is less than $100MM a year....these businesses represent over 80% of the US GDP.
Down with unions....bring back the seven day work week! 16 hr. No overtime days....sweatshop conditions...child labor....boooo! Unions bad!
Living wage my ass. I prefer the workforce to have no collective voice, no collective power...no power at all. Then we can pay them minimum wages. Make em work weekends and holidays with no compensation. Pit the workers against one another...do anything we want to them. Down with unions!!! Globalize! Globalize! Ship these commie union jobs overseas!
Ps...thanks chief, I mean for your reasons...i disagree also...as I've stated at length elsewhere. At least you had the bag to state your reasons...unlike some people around here...coughjjcough
Thanks, stinky!
@ Ge0rge
You know, I've been thinking about your list above. I really feel like I have to respond item by item:
1) I get the Bush Sr. Thing - but I don't get the Cheney reference. Did Dick buy a car from him?
2) Was going on pre-2000.
3) To my knowledge, no one in the current Admin has suggested that the US leave the UN. If they have, I need a link.
4) The abortion thing started before GWB - I'm not sure who you're referring to on the multi-national organization (Microsoft?)
5) LOL. I get the humor - I guess this is an anti-Christian thing?
6) Dunno - you're going to have to show me a vote or a bill. I know it's been talked about in the campaign, but that's all.
7) I wasn't aware that sex ed was a campaign issue.
8) ? I somewhat agree that the country went a little far in it's mockery of France - but this is somewhat of an overstatement.
9) If you're going to throw rocks at providing healthcare for Iraqis - you also need to throw in the various nations in Africa, Afghanistan, etc. Thay are all the same - humanitarian missions. People keep forgetting just how good they got it in the US...they also need to address the problem and stop walking around with their hand out looking for the next handout.
10) I agree with the sarcasm on this particular issue. Maybe we would be singing a different tune if they went out of business? The trail lawyers would be raising hell - no one left to sue. If you think healthcare is pricey now - wait until those guys get their hooks deeper into them.
11) Again - I am not aware of any major issues with any of these - other than creationism. And you know what? I don't remember anyone publicly raising hell about this? Is this one of those "it could happen" issues?
12) You are exactly correct. ANYONE who lies under oath should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - no matter how liable they are. Don't believe me? Go in a court of law and commit perjury. It's called integrity.
13) I assume you are talking about Iraq. Don't you mean a Clinton-era bureaucrat lying to his boss to make a good impression is solid defense strategy? And you know what's really funny here? Bush backed his man - took him at his word. AND took responsiibility for the decision to go into Iraq. Kerry was certainly behind his fellow servicemen at that Senate hearing in the '70's ('73?) - he just didn't use lube.
14) To my knowledge, the Federal Gov't has NOT banned gay marriages nor have they censored the internet. It is my understanding that they monitor the internet - a fact that I have no problem with, as I obey the law - people with nothing to hide typically don't mind a cop being around. As far as the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage - which I am not in favor of by the way - it is actually up to COngress to assdress this issue. If the President could single-handedly alter the Constitution, I am pretty sure that Clinton would still be President and that grass would be legal.
15) You're right on one count - the First Couple should disclose their financial dealings. As far as Bush's driving record - it has been made public. Bush has also signed the DOD form authorizing the release of his military records. Why hasn't Sen Kerry signed one?
16) I am actually in disagreement with this. I understand why this is worded this way - and rightly so. I suspect Limbaugh has a different opinion now - and God knows we have all rung a bell we later wished we could unring.
17) I don't get this one.
18) This one either. I could care less what either one of them were doing at those particular times.
@ OM
19) I agree. The more oil the better. "A Hummer in every garage."
Page : 1 . . . . . 11 : 12 : <13> : 14 : 15 . . . . . 18
This thread has been locked
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.