|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 13:13:18 GMT -5
I'm not. If Bush were taking issue with them specificly then they would be taken as specific issue. This one ad was pointed out, not by me, as being out of line. I agree. It's that simple. I have said that most if not all soft money ads are at the very least misleading. If you would like to point out some specific ads that are oput line against Bush then I'll be outraged about them too. I have taken specific issue with this ad only because it was being made an example of. Had it not been newsworthy or discussion worthy it never would have been mentioned on these boards. I do feel that these ads are particularly damaging to Kerry, just as I realise many are damaging to Bush...but I don't know what you're looking for. I'm in a rock and hard place on these ads, I don't like them but at the same time I believe in freedom of speech. They are leagal. I don't have to like and it does no good to outraged over them. I won't say they shouldn't be allowed because when you defend something like freedom of speech you muct accept some bad things with the good. I choose to beleive military records, Kerry and a majority of his shipmates and now Bush himself that he did not lie. Which in turn means the ad is lying. I think should be removed becuase it is the right thing to do. You yourself admitted some of the things in it have been false, why shouldn't we asked that it be removed?If there are any Bush ads where even one thing in it is proven blantantly false then I'll ask for it's removal too. I don't watch much TV so I don't see many of them but if you want to bring them to my attention then we'll sit and knock them down all afternoon. It sounds like you're saying here that you only form opinions on things that have become issues in the media. That can't be the case, can it? Your defense of not being outraged by lies about Bush is REALLY that there has not been outrage in the national discussion? Please clear this up. You say that ads have been damaging to Bush as well. I disagree. There are poll numbers to show that Kerry's lost some support after these ads started running. There is not polling data to demonstrate the same thing with Bush. There's not even polling date to demonstrate that Farenheit 9/11 hurt Bush's support. I also see a great deal of conflict in your comments on free speech, and would be interested in your clearing that up. You've been saying all along thatthese ads should be denounced and pulled. But you're saying that free speech is important. I realize that you've acknowledged the conflict, but then you still go on with it. In short, your position there makes no sense to me. Finally, here's where I think the biggest whole in your analysis of the swift boat ads lies ... it appears that you see it as black and white. Either the swift boat guys are lying, or Kerry is lying. If the swift boat guys are lying, then Kerry can't be. IF Kerry is lying, then the swift boat guys can't be. But in reality, is it really tha balck and white? Can't they both be lying. You didn't ask for it, but here's my analysis on that ... As I've said all along, I think that both sides of this issue are not telling the full truth. (and the Washington Post agrees with me). I think that both sides are exaggerating things, and lying about things, for political gain. But it happened more than 30 years ago, so it's only trivial and doesn't matter, right? Wrong. Why? Because John Kerry has told us that his Vietnam experience, his Vietnam heroics, are the reason why he'd do abetter job of conducting the war on terror, and being the commander-in-chief. He presented the case himself in his convention speech. But if that speech was not accurate, then his sales pitch is void. So, he's got to either tell us another reason why he's better on defense issues than Bush, or accept the old notion that Republicans are stronger on defense issues. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 13:14:19 GMT -5
The media being hypocritcal and me being hypocritcal are two different things. I will point... again...that I have never once said ANYTHING about the Bush campaign workers who were involved in the ads. Where did the media being hypocritical come into play here? And when were you accused again of saying anything about Bush campaign workers who were involved in the ads? |
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 27, 2004 13:18:52 GMT -5
Chris, you need to have a talk with my friend Arnold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 27, 2004 13:41:10 GMT -5
I took issue with the ad because an issue was being made of it. I can't take issue with things I don't know about often times things are brought to my attention through the media. Take that for what you will. Let me ask you a question. Do you think an ad that has been proven to contain lies even just one should be allowed to run?
The link you posted was an article calling the media hypocrites for not taking issue with the same tactics on the Kerry side. I have not done that. The article backed up no part of your arguemnt except that he used the word "hypocrite". Congradulations.
You can't seriously say that with Bush's approval rating at an all time low that these things have had no effect on him.
Let's see if you can understand this...the ads say "Kerry is lying about his military record here's why...". The military, Kerry, most of his shipmates and now Bush himself say "he's not lying about his record" granted there are some details in question...whether or not he exagerated some details, most people feel he probably did...but for the most part the subject of "kerry lied" has been disproven. "Kerry exagerated" is another story. If you really want to continue to harp on the other details I have no problem lumping you in with Kerry and Bush on the asshole boat.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Aug 27, 2004 13:50:25 GMT -5
Pissin, yesterday, deeeep in thought:
Ladies and gentlemen, the allmighty RocDoc has spoken. Listen to his words, and adhere to them, or else he might just tell you to fuck off. But without actually saying it.
Actually I'd be interested in hearing that guy's views on gay marriages. Could be entertaining. Then again it could be depressing.
Yes Pissin’, you heavy-thinker you. Be depressed, very depressed. For god’s sakes I just might not hew to your party line. That is IF you even can get past a compound sentence or 2…
…d’ya think that’ll be seens as a ‘fuck off’ too??
It would be quite in keeping with your inane ‘I’m young, hip and anti-establishment’ -CONSTANT run of 1-2 sentence knee-jerkisms which you keep parroting.
…the allmighty RocDoc has spoken. Listen to his words, and adhere to them, or else he might just tell you to fuck off.
THIS is the best you could do after all that I’d written in that post? Goddamn, you’re such a vital cog to all discussion here.
Ooooh wait, was that another veiled ’fuck-off’? Aaah, who cares, he’ll include it to the ‘list’ anyway…
IF you were a deep thinker as you think and wanted to actually engage in facts/opinions, why not counter this:
Americans lives have truly changed from 9/11 with ZERO chance of going back now...and anyone denying that is either living on a placid little island somewhere or they're an idiot.
…INSTEAD of this ‘Ooooh the almighty RocDoc speaks’ piss-poor form of dodge, which I definitely see simply as just a ‘fuck-off’ from you.
“Almighty’ this, OK?
Tell me how your life hasn’t changed, eh? SAY ‘something’…..
I’m defending my position against criticism, YOU are just ‘Nyah! nyah!’. BFD, pal.
And we should be so impressed?
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Aug 27, 2004 13:52:31 GMT -5
Thorn:
Oh yeah I remember: I posted some FDR-quotes thinking there was some sage advice in them applicable to today's political climate, and then you jumped down my throat for allegedly championing him as some kind of prophet. Yeah well I think you may have "overreacted" some; for crying out loud, why can't you admit that we may have some flaws in our administration's handling of this issue -?
Actually I think the FDR quotes were maybe your 3rd or 4th of a series of ‘Hey people! Look at this! See it the way I see it!’…peppered with accusations of fascist regimes blahblahblah……NOT just those deep FDR quotes….
And I’ve probably voiced my critiques, detailing my DISsatisfaction with the administration’s bungled DETAILS in following through on Iraq…so stop this shit with the blanket
’….why can't you admit that we may have some flaws…’
which you think makes me just another blanket apologist. I am NOT = to Chrisfan, am NOT = to Stratman, am NOT = to anyone else here who is one of these RARE Republican OSTRICHES whom you think you see hiding behind every tree. CF and Stratman are NOT(tho your apparent ‘job’’s made easier to assume so)this way either….
On THIS:
What we need NOW is someone up there who will engender a truly devious and practical plan heretofore unprecedented in the annals of history; we need a covert American plan to trick them sinister extremist bastards and put an end to their subversive regime once and for all.
I find myself in total agreement with you….however, I believe that GWB’s pretty obviously politically VERY risky plan, which he was counseled toward, IS the move of a convinced ‘true believer’ in TRYING to do just THAT thing you mentioned.
Imperfectly. Yeah(and for probably the 12-14th time on any of the RS sites, see? Seriously.)
We will NOT find any sort of a BETTER perfection with the John-Johns, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 13:53:04 GMT -5
Let me ask you a question. Do you think an ad that has been proven to contain lies even just one should be allowed to run? Yes. I also think that an ad refuting the first, explaining why the things said are lies should be allowed to run. And I would HOPE that real journalists would examine BOTH claims, and report on the accuracy in a fair and even-handed way, as the Washington Post did very well in the article I posted earlier this week. Don't confuse what I'm saying -- I'm not saying that I LIKE it when ads that lie are run. But I don't think they should be banned. The link you posted was an article calling the media hypocrites for not taking issue with the same tactics on the Kerry side. I have not done that. The article backed up no part of your arguemnt except that he used the word "hypocrite". Congradulations. Your summary is not accuate. First, the editorial was calling John Kerry a hypocrite ... not the media. Second, the use of the same tactics was just one of the examples that it gave. But again, you're ignoring everything but the ONE you've avoided. You can't seriously say that with Bush's approval rating at an all time low that these things have had no effect on him. If I'm wrong, then show me the evidence that states that I am wrong. In the case of Kerry, the polling data showed that his support declined as soon as the ads started airing. Therefore, a direct correlation can be assumed. In the case of Bush, yes, his approval ratings have been low (I don't believe that right now they're at the all time low that you state, but I'd have to check on that). However, the polling data has not shown the same direct correlation ... in other words, there was not a noticable drop in polls taken the week after F-9/11 was released. Also, please do not forget that approval ratings, and support are two entirely different things. A person can tell a pollster that he or she disapproves of the job Bush is doing, but would vote for Bush. My dad actually falls into that category. Let's see if you can understand this...the ads say "Kerry is lying about his military record here's why...". The military, Kerry, most of his shipmates and now Bush himself say "he's not lying about his record" granted there are some details in question...whether or not he exagerated some details, most people feel he probably did...but for the most part the subject of "kerry lied" has been disproven. "Kerry exagerated" is another story. If you really want to continue to harp on the other details I have no problem lumping you in with Kerry and Bush on the asshole boat. Again DED, it is not as black and white as you are portraying it. For starters, some aspects of Kerry's war record HAVE been proven to be lies. Much of that is surrounding his claims to have been in Cambodia. He's also been caught lying in speeches where he talked about remembering vividly being in Vietnam when he heard the news that Martin Luther King, Jr had been shot and killed ... only records show that Kerry had not yet arrived in Vietnam when King was killled ... and Kerry's own website confirms that conflict of dates based on the dates it gives for when Kerry was in Vietnam. Therefore, as I've said over and over, and you seem to be ignoring, it is not this black and white "if one side is lying, then other other is not". If you consider this to be "harping on details" then I guess I have to stand guilty of the charge. But when you continually state things that are simply false, I can't help but correct them. |
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 27, 2004 14:05:52 GMT -5
Why would I want to engage in deeeeeeeeep thought with someone who comes on here and writes a long winded post only to end the post by telling someone to fuck off. No, you didn't actually say "Fuck off thorn" but saying that his post makes you want to tell him to fuck off is basically the same thing. No time to engage in heavy deeeeep thought conversation with an ignorant fuck like that. Besides I'm just a kid who likes to party, and doesn't know what he's talking about. Oh and I'm hip because I don't like the president. Look at me go, look how hip I am!
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 27, 2004 14:08:03 GMT -5
Did you really just write Bush and True Believer in the same sentence? Wow. That's a disgrace to anyone with a heart, and a brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 27, 2004 14:09:46 GMT -5
Yes. I also think that an ad refuting the first, explaining why the things said are lies should be allowed to run. And I would HOPE that real journalists would examine BOTH claims, and report on the accuracy in a fair and even-handed way, as the Washington Post did very well in the article I posted earlier this week. Don't confuse what I'm saying -- I'm not saying that I LIKE it when ads that lie are run. But I don't think they should be banned. OK do you see anything wrong with asking the ads be pulled, though not actually require it? [quote}Your summary is not accuate. First, the editorial was calling John Kerry a hypocrite ... not the media. Second, the use of the same tactics was just one of the examples that it gave. But again, you're ignoring everything but the ONE you've avoided.[/quote] All right you caught me...I only skimed over the article, but non-the less I don't think Kerry is being any more hypocrtical then Bush. Thay are both grandstanding...Kerry is trying to get the victim vote and Bush is trying to show everyone how he takes charge...neither is true. Fine, he wasn't damaged. What do I care? You brought this up. Ok, but the issues address in the ad were false, if he lied some where else make an ad about that too. Let me see if I can clear up one last thing that you don't seem to be getting. I don't watch much TV, I don't troll the internet for political ads. I have seen the swift boat and a few of the moveon ads because I went looking for them. Other then that all I've seen are offical campaign ads. I can't get outraged over something I haven't seen. So if you'd like to bring a specific ad to my attention we'll get outraged together. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 14:18:58 GMT -5
OK do you see anything wrong with asking the ads be pulled, though not actually require it? Yes I do ... especially if the "asking" is coming from government officials. I think it's a very dangerous game to get into to allow / encourage elected officials to ask for free speech to be squelched. I can't come up with many ways that go directly against the first amendment than that. Not to mention that I think it's a complete and total waste to say things if you're not goingto actually back them up ... that's one of the reasons I'm voting for Bush. (don't mistake that as my not recognizing that Bush IS guilty of just that in this particular issue. I'm voting for Bush because he does not do that in matters that are far more important to me) Ok, but the issues address in the ad were false, if he lied some where else make an ad about that too. They are. But if you had it your way, no one would ever see them. Let me see if I can clear up one last thing that you don't seem to be getting. I don't watch much TV, I don't troll the internet for political ads. I have seen the swift boat and a few of the moveon ads because I went looking for them. Other then that all I've seen are offical campaign ads. I can't get outraged over something I haven't seen. So if you'd like to bring a specific ad to my attention we'll get outraged together. Sounds like youre admitting to not being well-informed on the issue overall, but rather just arguing it from what little you know that's been reported on. Seems kind of dangerous to me. But I do admire your willingness to at least admit to this. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 27, 2004 14:22:21 GMT -5
If I had it my way? What's my way?
I'm uniformed because I don't watch TV?...that's a first. I do watch the news and I read CNN.com and Foxnews.com daily. I was simply pointing out I haven't seen most of the ads but if you want to use that to dicount my entire opinion you certainly free to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 14:28:43 GMT -5
If I had it my way? What's my way? I'm uniformed because I don't watch TV?...that's a first. I do watch the news and I read CNN.com and Foxnews.com daily. I was simply pointing out I haven't seen most of the ads but if you want to use that to dicount my entire opinion you certainly free to do so. You've been saying all along that you think the ads should be pulled. If the swift boat guys are silenced, then additional ads by them would not be aired. Have you reversed your course now? Are the swift boat guys ok? And I didn't say you're uninformed because you don't watch TV. I said you're uninformed because YOU said you don't know much about the 527 ads, other than the swift boat ads. Normally, if I don't know much about both sides of an issue, I seek that information out, or else I don't engage in a debate about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 27, 2004 14:38:19 GMT -5
No I said I haven't SEEN alot of the ads not that I didn't know about them. I've read quite abit them and I've seen them from past years...enough to know they should be ignored unless one is being taken particular issue of.
I didn't say all the swift boat ads should be pulled. As I said the newest is my opinion more digusting then first but it's leagal. Taking things out of context is everyday practice in politics but no less cowrdly. I said we should ask them to pull the ad because it has been proven to contain lies...we can't make them pull it and in all likely hood they wouldn't but the act of eveyone saying "Look we know some of this stuff isn't true, if you want to show that Kerry is liar, fine but at least don't resort to lying yourselves to do it." would do just fine. I know you think that's silly and wouldn't get much done and you're probably right. I don't have much faith in most people to do the right thing anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 27, 2004 14:41:01 GMT -5
No I said I haven't SEEN alot of the ads not that I didn't know about them. I've read quite abit them and I've seen them from past years...enough to know they should be ignored unless one is being taken particular issue of. Isn't this handing over control of what you know solely to the mainstream media? Aren't there ever issues that come up, that stir your interest, and lead you to look into them more yourself? |
|
