Kerry Ad ....

[21gone]

Ok so we have 1 media mogul for conservatives (Fox) and about ten for the left wing. During an interview I had with the editor of Newsweek he explained to me that as much as journalism tries to be subjective, it is impossible. He then gave two people the same facts and let them write their own editorals, they both came up completely different. Its good that Fox is conservative and it is good that some of the others are liberal, it brings you both sides of the arguement and that way you can choose for yourself, given the limited knowledge we are allowed to have. I think people tend to jump on Fox because it is not what is common place because lets face it most of the media is quite liberal, the whole idea behind journalism if a liberal one being that you can say what you want and should be allowed to write as you please. Personally I like this thread there is stuff I agree and disagree with, but the best and most informed debaters are ones who know both sides of the story. I personally would much rather see a good arguement on politics of people who will go out and vote then to have people be apethetic not vote and not care and then complain when things dont go how they want.

 

[The Gardener]

Gardner, out of respect for your thoughtful input on hairloss topics, I'll go easy here.

Politics is not your strong suit. Hair yes...politics no.

BiteMe, you shouldn't have to worry about 'going easy' on me. I respect you, you respect me, my theory is that political debate should be fierce. Mortal combat. But, this only works when the debate is left to the ISSUES, and not any personal characteristics of the people making the debate.

Basically, by saying you are going to 'go easy' on me, I take it you were tempted to respond to me using some sort of personal attack. The question I ask you, is, not knowing me personally, how does making a personal attack on me, the Gardener, do anything to further your cause in the debate?

I haven't said anything personal to you, BiteMe. I haven't called you stupid, and haven't said anything that is a personal attack on you, have I? And yet I still have gotten in some very sharp-tipped remarks.

By resorting to attacking your debaters, and straying away from attacking the issues that the debaters are saying, then you are admitting that you have no issues to defend yourself with.

It's like person A saying, 'I hate blueberries because they stain your tongue.' Then, if person B who happens to be a blueberry lover tries to debate and says in reply 'well, blueberries are the best because Person A is stupid' it doesn't really score any points, does it?

So, lets have a debate here, lets NOT go easy but really let it rip. But, if you want to make jabs, make jabs at the issues, or at 'liberals' in general, but how about all of us NOT make jabs at each other individually?

And, no matter what transpires or anything you might say to me, Bite Me, I just hope you know that this is just a debate and I definitely have the highest respect for you. You know, when push comes to shove, I have MORE respect for a knowledgeable staunch conservative than I do for a liberal who doesn't know or doesn't care. I hate apathetic citizens much more than people who are active, but do not share my beliefs. At least these people CARE about the country.

Cheers, Bite Me. I hope you are having a nice evening... probably enjoying a nice cocktail while watching All-Busheira, oops, erm, I mean Fox News. lol[/code]

 

[BiteMe]

Gardner, out of respect for your thoughtful input on hairloss topics, I'll go easy here.

Politics is not your strong suit. Hair yes...politics no.

BiteMe, you shouldn't have to worry about 'going easy' on me. I respect you, you respect me, my theory is that political debate should be fierce. Mortal combat. But, this only works when the debate is left to the ISSUES, and not any personal characteristics of the people making the debate.

Basically, by saying you are going to 'go easy' on me, I take it you were tempted to respond to me using some sort of personal attack. The question I ask you, is, not knowing me personally, how does making a personal attack on me, the Gardener, do anything to further your cause in the debate?

I haven't said anything personal to you, BiteMe. I haven't called you stupid, and haven't said anything that is a personal attack on you, have I? And yet I still have gotten in some very sharp-tipped remarks.

By resorting to attacking your debaters, and straying away from attacking the issues that the debaters are saying, then you are admitting that you have no issues to defend yourself with.

It's like person A saying, 'I hate blueberries because they stain your tongue.' Then, if person B who happens to be a blueberry lover tries to debate and says in reply 'well, blueberries are the best because Person A is stupid' it doesn't really score any points, does it?

So, lets have a debate here, lets NOT go easy but really let it rip. But, if you want to make jabs, make jabs at the issues, or at 'liberals' in general, but how about all of us NOT make jabs at each other individually?

And, no matter what transpires or anything you might say to me, Bite Me, I just hope you know that this is just a debate and I definitely have the highest respect for you. You know, when push comes to shove, I have MORE respect for a knowledgeable staunch conservative than I do for a liberal who doesn't know or doesn't care. I hate apathetic citizens much more than people who are active, but do not share my beliefs. At least these people CARE about the country.

Cheers, Bite Me. I hope you are having a nice evening... probably enjoying a nice cocktail while watching All-Busheira, oops, erm, I mean Fox News. lol[/code]

Fair enough.... I had no intention of attacking you personally. I re-read my posts and don't see anywhere that I did. But if something came accross that way, my sincere apologies.

I did spike a couple of other posters in this thread though. Admittadly, I deviated from the point of this discussion when I did so....sometimes, I just can't let a personal jab at me go un-countered. Bad habit I know, but there's human nature for you.

...nuff said, I made my point here. Peace.

 

[drinkrum]

Hi,


Even Sen. John McCain asked the Bush campaign to renounce these accusations against Kerry. By the way, what was Bush doing at the time Kerry served his country, besides drunk driving?


avri

He was snortin' coke and drunk driving. Bush is a multi-tasker.

D.

 

[Brasileirao]

Hi,


Even Sen. John McCain asked the Bush campaign to renounce these accusations against Kerry. By the way, what was Bush doing at the time Kerry served his country, besides drunk driving?


avri

He was snortin' coke and drunk driving. Bush is a multi-tasker.

D.

More power to him! It was a war that NO ONE supported and Im sure many wished they didnt have to serve in.

I just dont get how Bush and Kerry keep bashing each other about the past. Jesus christ, enough already! This country is so UN-United its horrrrrrrible! I just wish people put their differences aside and did their job, all this "he said she said" makes both of them look like jack-asses.

At this point in time I think I have a better chance of winning the presidency....hmmmmmmmm?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

..nuff said, I made my point here. Peace.

LOL

 

[Axon]

God damn I love political "discussions."

 

[hairnow]

My Ramble

A long ramble here. I just read through this thread and have some thoughts. I'm not clairvoyant and I don't pretend to have the definitive answers, but I do have some observations as someone who sweated his way through much of his teens over the possibility of getting drafted and going to Vietnam. I know I'm at high risk of sounding like a big blowhard. I remember how WWII era men sounded to me. (There was a time when they weren't so well regarded or sentimentalized, before all the movies and reconcilliations with their children's generation).

Bite me wrote:

A LOT of the things he [Kerry] participated in when he came home from Vietnam CAUSED the disgusting and comdemnable treatment of our soldiers on thier return from the same place.

The "disgusting and condemnable treatment of our soldiers on their return" is more the stuff of urban legend than it is reality. Certainly, soldiers returning could easily have easily been offended the angry rhetoric seen and heard everywhere. The atmosphere was about like the atmosphere in this thread. But, actual confrontations more often took place between protestors and everyday people. You'd have a much easier time documenting violence between police and protestors with both sides initiating at various times, or assaults on protestors by construction workers. There was no wide spread mistreatment of soldiers when they returned from the war. These guys got home, were out of their units and into the civies in no time flat. It wasn't as if men were running around the streets in uniform so that people could insult them. And there were no greeting stands at Kennedy where protestors were waiting to spot a soldier debarking from a plane.

As far as Kerry's role in "causing" anything, I think the biggest thing he caused was a stomach ache for Richard Nixon. The atmosphere was poisoned beyond belief back then and there were bad guys and good guys on both sides of the issue.

Incidentally, no one wants to talk about this, but while I've never talked with a soldier who was personally mistreated upon returning from Vietnam, I've had two tell me about horrible things they did in Vietnam. One guy was just a scumbag and I don't know if he was bragging (if you can call it that). He told me in all too vivid detail and with glee about how they would fly helicopters down low over the tree tops at high speed and drop men into them. This was a co-worker who served in the late sixties and told me about this in '74. The object was to scare other prisoners in the helicopter into revealing information. I guess it's so horrible, I don't want to believe he was really involved in this.

The other stories were told to me by a friend of my girlfriend. He was dying of cancer in 2000. He was a very decent guy who had had a very tough life that he had straightened out. He went through a horrible time with guilt over things he'd done in Vietnam that were not part of the job, to put it delicately. They were brutal and criminal acts. Enough said about it. I don't have even a shred of doubt that he was telling the truth about the things he did and saw.

I hope you understand, I'm not saying Americans were the bad guys. Communism was a malignant nightmare and we had no manual on the best way to stop it. There were both good people and real opportunistic mother-fuckers on both sides of the issue. Talking about patriotism and love of country and who makes a good leader within the context of Vietnam seems ridiculous when I think of the atmosphere back then.

I don't blame GW for going to the Guard with his father's help or Al Gore for getting a journalism assignment with his father's help after he dropped out of Divinity school and lost his deferment. And I couldn't care less that Clinton got himself out of the draft. There were very few people who didn't get out of going if they had a way to avoid it. Likewise, I can't commend anyone for going. I don't think that Kerry is a better man than some other guy because he volunteered to go. I do think, he might be a little more thoughtful about what it means to send people into war. Does that qualify him to be President. Of course not. Maybe it makes him wiser, maybe it makes him too hesitant.

Does this sound like I'm indecisive? Yeah. I think some of you guys are way to sure about everything.

Since people's politics seem to be an issue here, I voted for Carter, Clark (Libertarian), Reagan, Bush, (didn't vote in '96) and Bush in 2000. I was 17 when the draft ended (two years away from the draft age 19 at the time). At 18 my lottery number came up in the 40's. I used to say I would run to Canada if I was drafted, but I was just a dumb 17-year-old who couldn't take care of myself. I don't know what I would have done if I was drafted. By the time the war ended it was getting pretty hard to find anyone, Republican or Democrat, who supported it.

This whole Kerry thing is so bizzare. He grossed me out with that hammy "reporting for duty" line at the convention, but something really smells about all the negative stories coming out 35+ years later. Incidentally, whether he is telling the truth or not, that O'Neil guy was one tense little prick back then, in case no one has noticed. He made Nixon look like he was laid-back.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Beautifully said, hairnow. I was 19 in 1969. I drew lotto number 61. I was months away from going to Nam, but I was in junior college at the time so I had a deferment. SDS was alive and well on campus, protests everywhere. I pretty much stayed out of politics, being a self-absorbed musican. But many of my friends served, one in Special Forces. 2 good friends were killed there. I don't really remember Kerry from that time, but everyone wanted out and no one wanted to serve in '69 or '70.

On the New swift boat ad, (the one where the guys complain about Kerry after the war) they conveniently left out the first paragraph from his testimony before Congress. You must read or watch on TV what he said BEFORE he said the words uttered in the commercial. He was merely quoting from testimonies of 150 Viet Nam veterans, all of which were honorably discharged. The new Republican add leaves out that fact, and they try to make it look like he's criticizing and insulting ALL the vets, when in fact, he isn't. He's only saying based on the testimony of those 150 veterans.., etc. But the words were taken out of context. The vets had their feelings hurt by those words, and it wounded their pride. They hear what they Want to hear.

Karl Rove, I must say, is politically brilliant. He's got Kerry defending something so blatantly bogus, rather than focusing on the economy, that abortion in Iraq, or the price of oil. All the things that hurt Bush.

As long as they keep the debate about 35 years ago, Bush wins. Republican strategists are f*****g brilliant.

I fear the Democrats won't be able to stoop low enough to win this thing.

 

[DAC21]

Hi,


Even Sen. John McCain asked the Bush campaign to renounce these accusations against Kerry. By the way, what was Bush doing at the time Kerry served his country, besides drunk driving?




Nothing to renounce, just like Kerry didn't renounce Moron.org with the Hitler / Bush comparisons. They are 527 soft money organizations, something dimwits McCain & Feingold failed to address in there POS bill.

BTW Bush HAS renounced ALL 527 organization, thus even you lefty pea brains should be able to deduce that he has indirectly denounced the Swift boat VETS. More to the point all Swift boat VETS are on record as not giving a rats *** if Bush did ask them to cease and desist. They are in it for the long haul, and it's not Bush's decision to make.

Please post the link where Kerry has called for 527's to be banished.
Tick Tick Tick Tick.....................................

Of course there is no link, 15 million from George "Socialist" Soros is to hard to pass up, along with 9 million from Stephen Bing (Hollywierd fatcat) and so on and so on. RATS have raised 2 x as much in soft money, a large percentage being from multi millionaires / billionaires. But rest assured, I'm sure these billionaires will have all of you little guys whom can't compete in the real world on their minds. (if they take power)

 

[avri]

Sorry, if you want anyone here to take your 'arguments' half-seriously, you'd have to be able to say 2 consecutive sentences without sticking half a dozen curses in between.


avri

 

[hairnow]

GW renounced the swiftboat ads, but is there anyone who believes he is actually troubled by these ads? If he is genuinely appalled, great! I doubt he is, though. I don't think it's crazy to believe that his repudiation of the ads was disengenuous.

These ads remind me of the Texas dragging death ad that dishonestly smeared Bush and the Willie Horton ad that Bush 1's friends employed in '88. Repudiating or renouncing these sleazey ads doesn't mean much if everyone believes the repudiation is insincere.

Incidentally, the comments about Bush's drunk driving while Kerry served in Vietnam strike me as the same sleazey, garbage that does nothing to contribute to the discussion. I don't care about how many hours Bush put into his third year of Reserve Air Guard service. The National Guard was nothing like what it is today. It's not a surprise that the record keeping was lax. Nobody cared then. It shouldn't be an issue now. Even still, GW put in enough hours of service to learn to fly a friggin' jet loaded with missiles.

Maybe it has always been the case, but it seems that the willingness to compromise one's integrity is a requirement for success in the pursuit of high political office. I wonder how many capable people won't go into political life because they know they are not willing to do what is necessary to win? And, how many people won't go into politics because they've lived a life and they are not willing to subject themselves or their families to ritual public abuse?

 

[Axon]

I wanna bang Jessica Cutler

Bonggggg

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The reason I became a Bush-basher was because of how he slimed McCain in the 2000 primary. McCain was MY candidate. The guy I had been waiting decades to vote for.

When the Bush campaign set the dogs on McCain in the South Carolina primary, saying he'd fathered illegitimate children, how he was still crazy from being a POW, how he was 'against' the veterans, then criticizing McCain's wife, I knew this guy was a piece of dung. It's the exact same tactics they are currently using to slime Kerry.

I don't think Bush can win in a fair fight.

The other thing that killed me was after Baghdad fell, when the museums were being looted - and we stood by and did nothing. Oh yeah, we protected the oil ministry.

Nice one, Mr. President. :hairy: