|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 9:31:02 GMT -5
i oughtta shake mr. harold's hand. "So let me ask you DED and Proud -- are you equally concerned wit the attorneys who are working for BOTH Kerry and MoveOn? If you are truly concerned with the possible illegal connections between campaigns and 527s, are you concerned with the co-chair of the Democratic convention running a pro-Kerry 527 himself? Are you concerned that John Kerry and his wife have attended MoveOn events? Or are you comfortable in your hypocrisy?" i'm comfortable as hell, mainly because: a) it was bush's side going after kerry's war record, and not vice versa. This is simply not true. Not only had both Kerry and Edwards made accusations about Bush's guard service before this non-Bush campaign group questioned Kerry's record, but the chair of the DNC, has called him AWOL, and Kerry supporters such as Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy (all of whom appeard on state to support Kerry at his convention) have questioned Bush's war record. Proud, do you EVER acknowledge factual information? Further more, John Kerry specifically set out the challenge at the democratic convention to DEBATE war records. To quote him, he asked that they "bring it on". Why did he ever ask for it if he didn't want it? Do you trust a man who can't stand behind his words to speak for this country? I don't. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 9:35:38 GMT -5
My hypocrisy? Let's back that train up alittle bit. If you beleive for one second that Kerry, moveon and the democratic convention are the only ones who are invovled in in shady deals you're just not paying attention, I don't believe for one second you're that nieve. I believe you asked this more for the reaction then the answer, but here's your answer anyway...You pick your battles. You can't fight everything. I belive both sides are invovled in plenty of shady playground polotics. So unless we can stop them both or prove that one is actually doing sopmething illeagal, and we can't, it's time to let it go and move on. We all have our little bouts of hypocrisy dear, even you. Where have I ever said that I don't think that both sides make deals that are shady? While the supporters of McCain Feingold are now saying that they had to put the 527 loophole in the law to make it Constitutional, I firmly believe that it was written exactly as it was specifically for their creation. The legislation was nothing more than grandstanding by all involved to say "we want to clean this up". None of them want to clean it up! It's their bread and butter. I am smart enough to beleive that the men who write and sign laws like this know EXACTLY where the loopholes are, and they write them in so that they can use them. And I believe that both sides have. I don't think that Ben Ginsberg needed to resign. I have no problem with John Kerry attending MoveOn events. I wasn't the one throwing about the accusations ... I was simply asking why on earth you and Proud throw them around for one side, but don't apply them to the other. And I stand behind what I've said -- specifically for throwing around these accusations, and not applying them to both sides, you ARE hypocrites. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 27, 2004 9:37:46 GMT -5
"This is simply not true. Not only had both Kerry and Edwards made accusations about Bush's guard service before this non-Bush campaign group questioned Kerry's record, but the chair of the DNC, has called him AWOL, and Kerry supporters such as Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy (all of whom appeard on state to support Kerry at his convention) have questioned Bush's war record."
before, of course. nobody cared then.
i wasn't aware that howard dean, al gore, and ted kennedy hold positions in kerry's campaign group. i hope kerry pays them handsomely.
"Proud, do you EVER acknowledge factual information?"
... i don't know why you're taking shots, but that's not a good idea.
"Further more, John Kerry specifically set out the challenge at the democratic convention to DEBATE war records. To quote him, he asked that they "bring it on"."
hmm. since when did i deny that? it was about protecting his own war record, anyway...
"Why did he ever ask for it if he didn't want it?"
last comment.
"Do you trust a man who can't stand behind his words to speak for this country? I don't."
more than i do george w. bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 27, 2004 9:43:43 GMT -5
Strat -- how do you feel about your dues going to pay people who are taking actions that appear to not represent the majority of members in the union? It pisses me off. It pisses a lot of of us off. With any luck, we'll be able to turn Harold out when his term is up. There is widespread dismay that he has been dragging this union to the far left since his election. Hopefully we'll be able to get rid of him. |
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 27, 2004 9:46:58 GMT -5
i oughtta shake mr. harold's hand.
I honestly don't know how you could even say that. A union president that doesn't reflect the views and wishes of the vast majority of his union's membership, is a union president that's not doing his job. Are you saying that you would prefer to belong to a labor union where your own president is not doing his job Proud?
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 27, 2004 9:47:08 GMT -5
also, what kerry said, from the comment i heard, is that he could not prove EITHER WAY if bush had served or not, meaning he did not directly accuse him of not serving. as far as edwards goes, i haven't heard much, but he has a bit of a loose cannon so i wouldn't be surprised (quite the naive young man... reminds me too much of dan quayle, but i'm hoping edwards is smarter... hoping).
all joking aside, mr. harold shouldn't be endorsing a candidate like that if his people disagree in such large numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 9:51:27 GMT -5
i oughtta shake mr. harold's hand.
I honestly don't know how you could even say that. A union president that doesn't reflect the views and wishes of the vast majority of his union's membership, is a union president that's not doing his job. Are you saying that you would prefer to belong to a labor union where your own president is not doing his job Proud? Haven't you caught on Strat? When a person doesn't reflect Proud's views, he's a facist. When a person does whatever he wants, regardless of what the law says, or what the majority of those he's representing says, just because he has the power to do so, that's not a facist in Proud's eyes ... it's a hero.  |
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 27, 2004 9:52:04 GMT -5
Where have I ever said that I don't think that both sides make deals that are shady? While the supporters of McCain Feingold are now saying that they had to put the 527 loophole in the law to make it Constitutional, I firmly believe that it was written exactly as it was specifically for their creation. The legislation was nothing more than grandstanding by all involved to say "we want to clean this up". None of them want to clean it up! It's their bread and butter. I am smart enough to beleive that the men who write and sign laws like this know EXACTLY where the loopholes are, and they write them in so that they can use them. And I believe that both sides have. I don't think that Ben Ginsberg needed to resign. I have no problem with John Kerry attending MoveOn events. I wasn't the one throwing about the accusations ... I was simply asking why on earth you and Proud throw them around for one side, but don't apply them to the other. And I stand behind what I've said -- specifically for throwing around these accusations, and not applying them to both sides, you ARE hypocrites. I agree with this post. I'll also go as far to say that there will never be true campaign finance reform. As we stated long ago, "money is the mother's milk of politics". It's not in the best interests of either side to dry up the money pit. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 27, 2004 9:54:39 GMT -5
"Haven't you caught on Strat? When a person doesn't reflect Proud's views, he's a facist. When a person does whatever he wants, regardless of what the law says, or what the majority of those he's representing says, just because he has the power to do so, that's not a facist in Proud's eyes ... it's a hero."
a) i was joking.
b) as i said earlier, i don't know why you're choosing to get dirty, but i won't stand for it.
c) i respect a lot of our troops and generals over the years, regardless of whether or not i support the wars. does that mean that i endorse the vietnam and iraq wars? so much for facism!
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 27, 2004 10:08:47 GMT -5
STOP BEING A FACIST PROUD!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 10:11:41 GMT -5
He isn't a facist. HE just appears to have no core convictions that he'll stick to, other than perhaps a love for shit stirring.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 27, 2004 10:13:41 GMT -5
or, maybe you just can't take a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Aug 27, 2004 10:15:13 GMT -5
I don't know if I really want to delve back into this topic at this point, but Stratman, I did have a rather lengthy post where I asked you some (what I thought to be) interesting questions on the gay marriage issue that you probably missed in the ensuing argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 27, 2004 10:16:21 GMT -5
He probably skipped over it because it wasn't written by chrisfan, or it didn't involve someone drooling over Ape W. Bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 27, 2004 10:18:55 GMT -5
thank you, sensei pissin.
"He isn't a facist. HE just appears to have no core convictions that he'll stick to"
i have plenty of 'em... i've already stated a bunch of them...
"other than perhaps a love for shit stirring."
congratulations, i have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
|
|
