|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 17, 2004 11:10:53 GMT -5
Well, seeing as several of these guys have praised Kerry in the past and the offical army records back up Kerry's story, I'd say it's pretty easy to figure out who's lying. Imagine if a liberal group began running ads saying that Bush ran to Mexico instead of going to the war. While not completely removed from the truth, Bush did activly avoid going to Veitnam, it's just not true, but we've got a bunch of guys from the coast guard who don't remeber him being there...is this ad ok becuase we're not sure which one's lying?
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 11:11:02 GMT -5
I think it's safe to say that when someone says "I served with John Kerry" and yet he hasn't served with John Kerry...that's a lie.
Or perhaps only if said person is George Soros, it would seem.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 11:14:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 11:16:13 GMT -5
Or perhaps only if said person is George Soros, it would seem. Shin, looks like another of my points has flown over your head. I"m dismissing ALL of the assholes who are pooling money to make claims against one of the candidates ... not JUST the ones who make a point that benefits my chosen candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 17, 2004 11:19:36 GMT -5
loyalty oaths? LOL! reminds me of the b.s. richard nixon tried to pull back when he needed college kids to applaud him at his speeches.
as far as kerry's war service goes: he served, and he served honorably. it's time to stop complaining.
god bless john mccain for having the balls to step up against the ads bashing kerry's military service.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 11:33:02 GMT -5
Shin, looks like another of my points has flown over your head. I"m dismissing ALL of the assholes who are pooling money to make claims against one of the candidates ... not JUST the ones who make a point that benefits my chosen candidate. I got your point just fine so you can keep the nonsense to yourself. It's my point that you haven't gotten: Soros is not comparable to people who did the completely despicable attacks on McCain and are now lying about Kerry. Because Soros is rich that makes him equal to these scumbags? Because he donates to MoveOn.org? You of all people should know better than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 17, 2004 11:46:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 12:23:38 GMT -5
I got your point just fine so you can keep the nonsense to yourself. It's my point that you haven't gotten: Soros is not comparable to people who did the completely despicable attacks on McCain and are now lying about Kerry. Because Soros is rich that makes him equal to these scumbags? Because he donates to MoveOn.org? You of all people should know better than that. What is the difference between a dispicable attack on McCain or Kerry and a dispicable attack on Bush? In all cases, they're avoiding the truth and spending a lot of money to effect the outcome of an election ... to make sure that someone loses rather than that someone wins because of ideas he/they agree with more. It's ALL crap as far as I'm concerned. The "one is a lie and the other isn't" does not cut it with me ... primarily because the swift boat stuff is a bunch of he said she said which can't be proven right or wrong ... which by definition keeps it from being a blatant lie. |
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Aug 17, 2004 12:34:09 GMT -5
Superior in its analogies and logic....Q.E.D.
FWD: Subject: ant & grasshopper
OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!!!!!
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.> > >
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We Shall Overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Tom Daschle & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "Fair Share."
Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing
left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared into the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: VOTE REPUBLICAN
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 12:36:59 GMT -5
What is the difference between a dispicable attack on McCain or Kerry and a dispicable attack on Bush? In all cases, they're avoiding the truth and spending a lot of money to effect the outcome of an election ... to make sure that someone loses rather than that someone wins because of ideas he/they agree with more. It's ALL crap as far as I'm concerned. The "one is a lie and the other isn't" does not cut it with me ... primarily because the swift boat stuff is a bunch of he said she said which can't be proven right or wrong ... which by definition keeps it from being a blatant lie. "primarily because the swift boat stuff is a bunch of he said she said which can't be proven right or wrong ... which by definition keeps it from being a blatant lie." Please tell me this is a joke. You mean despite the fact that it's been proven that none of these men served WITH Kerry, and that the man who said he didn't deserve his Purple Heart wasn't the one who analyzed his wounds in the report, you mean this can't be proven to be a lie?? Unless you're suggesting that anyone can say anything about anyone and that if said person was within 5 miles of the incident in question, they are in fact a knowledgeable witness. In that case: the last time George W. Bush was in Boston, which was a few months ago, he ate babies. Devoured them whole, he did. This can't be proven to be a lie because it's he said/she said. I'd also like to know what despicable attack George Soros and MoveOn.org has done on Bush. This had better not be that "Hitler" thing... |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 12:48:45 GMT -5
Please tell me this is a joke. You mean despite the fact that it's been proven that none of these men served WITH Kerry, and that the man who said he didn't deserve his Purple Heart wasn't the one who analyzed his wounds in the report, you mean this can't be proven to be a lie?? Unless you're suggesting that anyone can say anything about anyone and that if said person was within 5 miles of the incident in question, they are in fact a knowledgeable witness. The entire debate is a semantical circle jerk. Here's an example of how/why that's done ... these men say they "served" with John Kerry. Kerry defenders say they did not "serve" with Kerry. They're both right. It's right to say they didn't "serve" with him, when you define "serve" as being on the same crew of the same boat. But they're right to say that they did "serve" with him when they were on another boat that worked with Kerry's boat. Semantics ... both are right. There is also so much criticism and defense flying around from both sides that at this point, it's next to impossible to determine who is right ... because there really isn't much investigation going on right now that's unbiased. But again, I'm not really sure there SHOULD be much unbiased investigation, because I fail to see how any of this TRULY answers the question that matters, which is whether or not Kerry is the best man for the job of president. I'd also like to know what despicable attack George Soros and MoveOn.org has done on Bush. This had better not be that "Hitler" thing... Why exactly shouldn't the "Hitler thing" be thrown in there? It was quite pathetic. In addition to that, you've got all their rhetoric about Bush intentionally misleading the public about the war in Iraq, the claims that it's been proven that Rumsfeld ordered the abuses at Abu Grahb, etc. Then of course, there's my all time favorite crap that they're throwing around ... that George W Bush was only elected in 2000 due to faulty voting equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 13:39:43 GMT -5
Why shouldn't the Hitler thing be thrown out there? Because it was only two out of hundreds of submissions. The videos themselves were not commissioned by MoveOn. Before there was any media publicity, the videos were dismissed and rejected by MoveOn, internally. Can you honestly be serious about this? You're going to hold them accountable for things they had no creation with? I mean, MoveOn explicitly condemned those ads. Has Bush condemned the Swift Vets ad? Nope.
Has it really come to this, that in the interests of being "fair" you're willing to twist logic and mangle facts?
I guess it has.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 17, 2004 13:43:41 GMT -5
As politics is in large part simply a difference in philosophies is their any question, topic or discussion that would lead to the conclusion of "best man for the job"? I love it when people dicount subjects on this basis just becuase they don't personally care about it. Alot of people do. To some his military record is very important. In fact it's not so much they're debating his military record as much as they're just trying to label him a liar. I know you're smart enough to understand that as well as I know you know the difference between blatant lie and speculative charges, I also know you have a habit of not what the opppsistion is talking about when it's convenient. You said ealier that it was great example of their being three sides to every story when it's an even better example that people believe what they want to believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 13:46:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 17, 2004 13:47:33 GMT -5
I'm not twisting logic and mangling facts Shin. I'm fairly condeming ALL the jackasses who are twisting logic and mangling facts in order to get the guy elected (or not elected) who they want. You don't see it the way I do. That's fine, and it does not surprise me in the slightest. Just please realize that what you're rejecting is me not seeing things with the same bias you do ... not my being totally blind to some irrefutable facts, while accepting other shady information. I also find it rather telling that you jump all over the Hitler thing that you begged for, yet don't even acknowledge that I added several things to that list.
|
|
