|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 21, 2004 21:30:23 GMT -5
it's disgusting, if not vomitworthy, for the bush camp to question kerry's war record.You fucking assholes really piss me off. Bush hasn't questioned Kerry's war record. tons of hugs. and what DED said (plus more, but let's not get into it). |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 23, 2004 6:00:12 GMT -5
You're even illustrating it yourself: it's about Bush AND Kerry's campaign involvements. See? Don't look at me, look at him, that sort of thing. Learn how to read. I have not said don't look at Bush, look at Kerry. I"ve said look at BOTH Bush and Kerry. See, that's how laws are supposed to be applied ... to everyone equally. NOt just to the guys you don't like. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 23, 2004 6:53:40 GMT -5
Yes, but no one is accusing Kerry of working with these groups and Kerry has spoken out against some of the ads for going "over the line".
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 23, 2004 6:55:04 GMT -5
Shin, I'm getting tired of this subject again. So I'm going to attempt to wrap up my comments.
My biggest problem with your arguments here is that once again, you appear to be taking the "Bush is evil, so anything that supports him is bad and wrong, and anything that is against him is good and innocent" side. What makes that even worse is that you do so while accusing anyone who disagrees with you of "blindly drinking the kool aid".
IF the Bush campaign is working with the swift boat dude ads, then they're wrong in doing so, because they're breaking the law. At the same time, if the Kerry campagin is working with any of the anti-Bush 527s, they're wrong in doing so, because they're breaking the law. Is either side working with them? My guess is probably not directly, but they sure are both benefitting indirectly. Kerry has demostrated his benefits by backing off on his advertising spending in months where the anti-Bush 527s have been the heaviest. IT's been quite easy for him to call on Bush to run a clean campaign when he's got so many 527s, and Hollywood, to do the dirty work for him. And Bush is demonstrating the benefits of the swift boat dudes through non-direct comments that keep the "controversy" alive.
Look, both sides are behaving like idiots in this. I've become obsessed with Olympic ping pong merely as an excuse to escape BOTH sides saying "We're trying to talk about the issues, but THEY are doing this so we have to defend ourselves". BOTH sides are guilty of acting like assholes. BOTH sides find it easier and more excting to discuss petty things that don't matter for a hill of beans, like Vietnam service.
You keep on saying that the swift boat dudes have been proven to be liars. I agree that many of their accusations have been proven to be either false, or unreliable. But guess what? Kerry's recollection of his service in Vietnam has also been proven to be false, and unreliable. He has yet to explain the inaccuracies in his Cambodia story (no record of operations in Cambodia during the time he claims, records of his being elsewhere in that same time which are backed up by people who served with him, Nixon not even being president in the window he's claiming, etc) So you're right ... the swift boat dudes credibility has been called out. So tell me, why aren't you applying those same standards to Kerry, to admit that he's also been discredited?
And yet again, this is all leading to BS rhetoric along the lines of "Bush dodged the Vietnam war. Bush was AWOL". yada yada yada. First, I challenge you to find a Bush voter who is voting for him BECAUSE of his actions during the Vietnam era. We all know he was an asshole then. He knows he was an asshole then. If he were still the way he was then, he would not have my support, and I venture to guess I"m not the only one. But I, and many voters like me, recognize that people change, they grow up, they evolve, and what has happened in the past 5 to 10 years matters a hell of a lot more than what happened 30 years ago ... especially when the person in question owns up to his screw ups. Second, it puzzles me that the same people who are jumping all over the contradictions in the swift boat dude's credibility, and don't apply those same standards to Kerry's Cambodia story,come up with yet another set of criteria to evaluate Bush's guard service, and suddenly declare it to be AWOL. Your inconsistency shines through brigher than one of George HW Bush's 1000 points of light. (insert Shin's I know you are but what am I-like retort here)
But I guess that if we have to continue going through this over and over and overagain, that it's only right to look at how these events, and this debate, reflect on the candidate's character. John Kerry keeps on saying that Bush alienates world leaders, causes them to not work with us, and must be replaced because of it. But the men who are coming out so vigorously against Kerry (and BTW some of them have been for 30 years ... not just now that he's running against Bush) have harbored this anger and hatred towards the man for 30 years now. So just what about that should make me or anyone else believe that Kerry doesn't alienate people to the degree that they won't work with him?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 23, 2004 6:56:57 GMT -5
Yes, but no one is accusing Kerry of working with these groups and Kerry has spoken out against some of the ads for going "over the line". Your argument is inaccurate. Kerry IS being accused of working with these groups. Some of the evidence of this has been the number of people who have jumped from the anti-Bush 527s to the Kerry campaign, and vice versa, Bill Richardson's (and other notable names) involvement in both an anti-Bush 527 AND the Democratic National Convention, and the number of 527 leaders who were in attendence at the democratic national convention. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 23, 2004 7:22:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 23, 2004 8:11:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 23, 2004 8:36:06 GMT -5
hilarity at its finest.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 23, 2004 8:42:54 GMT -5
Bush would be awesome in a new planet of the apes movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 23, 2004 9:34:57 GMT -5
Bush would be awesome in a new planet of the apes movie. Yes, Bush in the Charlton Heston role, as a lone heroic astronaut fighting for survival on a planet full of Democrat-like apes...interesting concept. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 23, 2004 9:45:33 GMT -5
lmao Strat!
Here's a question I've been pondering for a while ... is John McCain REALLY as popular as both parties would like for us to beleive? I've never been crazy about the guy, so I know I couldn't figure it out without a bias. But if you look at his run against Bush in 2000, he did well, but didn't create any sort of a landslide in support ... or else he would have won the nomination. There's just part of me that thinks that the American public is being TOLD that he's so popular ... not that he really is. I've heard the "he's a moderate" argument made, but he's certainly not the only moderate in Washiongton. So why is it that both sides salivate over the guy so much?
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 23, 2004 9:49:32 GMT -5
i like john mccain because he has balls without being stupid. which is more than i can say for most politicians.
but of course, i don't love him or anything, mainly due to the whole conservative political agenda... believe me, he's truly a republican.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Aug 23, 2004 9:51:48 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with being a moderate.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 23, 2004 9:53:31 GMT -5
Chris, regarding McCain, I'm not all that sure he is as popular nationwide as both sides want us to believe. He's always been viewed as a bit of a maverick.
One thing I can say though, is that McCain (for whatever reason), is extremely popular in Michigan. He has a real, and strong following here. One very important reason why President Bush brought him to the state on one of his visits.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Aug 23, 2004 9:55:24 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with being a moderate. I agree Shane, but then I kind of agree with people who would disagree with you as well. |
|
)
