# OT: Kerry strikes back at Swift Boat Veterans



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Here's what Kerry had to say yesterday . . . 



> "This group isn't interested in the truth -- and they're not telling the truth . . . They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14889-2004Aug19.html

A few questions, Mr. Kerry:

When Michael Moore came out with "Fahrenheit 9/11," which was full of lies and distortions about Bush, why didn't you "denounce" him?

When Hollywood came out with other films like "Embedded" and "The Manchurian Candidate," which were thinly disguised attacks on Bush, why didn't you stand up and cry "foul!"?

When Whoopi Goldberg made dirty jokes about Bush's name at your Democratic fundraiser, why didn't you criticize her, instead of saying she represented the "best spirit of America"?

When George Soros spent over $15 million in the last year to promote attacks on Bush, why didn't you protest against that?

When the Democrats produced a TV ad about a black man being dragged behind a pickup truck, and blamed his death on Bush, why didn't you distance yourself from such dirty tricks?

The fact is, Mr. Kerry, you are getting what you deserve. You never stood up against any sleazy campaign tricks done in the name of Democrat causes, but now you are suddenly alarmed when YOU are the victim of a negative PR campaign. 

As the old text says, "As ye sow, so shall ye also reap."


----------



## I_HateDamon (Aug 12, 2004)

Talkhard, you da man.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Why should Kerry denounce Moore when the President doesn't denounce these "Swift Boat Veterans", or Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and the rest of the conservative media on Talk Radio and Fox News that do nothing but push for President Bush. 

The Republicans (by which, I mean Karl Rove) are very, very good at running a smear campaign that attacks political opponents (whether it be Kerry or McCain in 2000). Is Kerry just supposed to sit back and take this abuse. They have to fight back in some way....and with Bush as the opponent, they have some pretty good fodder to fuel major criticisms.



Personally I have nothing wrong with Kerry or any celebrity that wishes to express their 1st amendment right to criticize our president. What I do have a problem with is when the political party and media spreads lies or misleading information. 

I mean, whether it be Kerry's Purple heart's under attack, or anything else, it seems that the Reps. and their media friends are doing a pretty effective job of getting people to follow the crap they throw out...hook, line and sinker. How about we'll talk about the Democratic National Convention...OH WAIT...Now we have a Terror Alert Orange (What BS...it'll NEVER go below Yellow). 

I'm really getting sick of all the lies and misinformation spread throughout this campaign...by both sides, but Primarily Bush (since they lie about more...and they need to to win). 


If you want to call Kerry on his record, then by all means do so. I have no problem with someone that supports a woman's right to choose, supports civil unions, and providing services to those that are less fortunate (I'm sorry if I'm humanitarian enough to give up a little extra money so that hungry people can get food and children can learn to read). 

But at the same time, look at Bush's record...his stance on the war (A resounding middle finger to the rest of the world), abortion, gay marriage, healthcare, TAX CUTS For the Wealthy (Trickle Down "Voodoo" Economics DO NOT work!!!). Bush is a terrible leader. He was considered a failure in life until he was 40. Heck, he's even considered the Black Sheep in his family and doesn't get along with his dad that well. Overall, the man is being driven by the political machine, despite the fact that he is incompetent. I'm certain that I could do a better job at running the country with my limited knowledge at 19 years old (even though I do have VERY good critical thinking skills). 

I mean, the guy is trying to keep any (Non-Christian) religion out of Iraq's government at all cost, while at the same time he is trying to insert it into our government through topics such as gay marriage and abortion.

Personally, I just recently spent a month in Europe, and everywhere I went people wanted to know if I liked Bush. Thankfully, I didn't have to lie in telling them that I hate the man, as I would have been pretty embarrassed if I felt any different. The rest of the world despises America because of Bush and what he has done in the last four years. He took America from being a globally-respected nation, with a record national surplus, to having one of (if not the largest) national debt of all time....and he wants to give tax cuts to all of his Big Business CEO friends. 

Goodness. That's more then enough for now.



Oh, and is it just me because very time I logon to this board I see another topic that Target starts that says "OT: Another Flaw with Kerry".


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Since when does bush support gay marriage? 

Thats your boy kerry you are thinking about.


----------



## The Pup (Jan 25, 2004)

> If you want to call Kerry on his record, then by all means do so.


Everytime I find something on his record, I find the exact opposite....*on his record.* I would like him much more if he would just make up his mind (whether a agree with him or not) and stick with it.

I may not agree with W. but at least I know where he stands. Kerry is waffling more than William Jefferson used to. Pretty soon it will be...."it depends on the definition of injury as to how I got my purple heart."

All I know is that more people in the military photo that Kerry proudly boasted about disagree with him or adamandtly say he is lying than agree with him and support him. 

The Senator says we are suppose to listen to the 3 men who agreed with him and ingnore the 19 that said he was full of ...it. 

Hmmmmm.........that strikes me as very curious.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

> When Michael Moore came out with "Fahrenheit 9/11," which was full of lies and distortions about Bush, why didn't you "denounce" him?


Please, share with us what these "lies and distortions about Bush" were from the film. Surely you can come up with just a few, considering the length of the film that was apparently "full" of them.



> When Hollywood came out with other films like "Embedded" and "The Manchurian Candidate," which were thinly disguised attacks on Bush, why didn't you stand up and cry "foul!"?


LOL. Yeah. Kerry is going to commit political suicide and take a wild guess that your crazy conspiracy theory about these two films is correct and denounce them. That's a ridiculous comparison. The swift boat commercials were an obvious spit in the face of a war hero. The democrats have taken the high road this entire campaign. But oh, you're right, they're secretly pumping money into Hollywood for these anti-Bush films. :krazy:

By the way, "The Manchurian Candidate" is a remake of a movie from 1962. Nice theory, but it doesn't hold water that this movie is somehow a Bush-trashing movie.



> The fact is, Mr. Kerry, you are getting what you deserve.


Why is he getting "what he deserves"? Because he doesn't think like you do? Kerry has been waiting for several months to debate Bush ON THE ISSUES facing this country. Bush wants to ignore the multi-million jobs that have been lost during his tenure. He wants to ignore the rising cost of health care. He wants to ignore the fact that he lied to hastily get us into a war with Iraq, then declared "mission accomplished" as hundreds of traumatized American troops were to be killed in the following months.

No, in fact, Bush would much rather just trash Kerry's service record (Bush doesn't have one, by the way - unless you consider several AWOL blemishes on his brief stint with the Texas Air National Guard a "service record"). That's exactly why a fellow war hero (and a Republican, I might add), John McCain, came out and criticized Bush's campaign immediately when the swiftboat commercials came out.

Bush talks this high-and-mighty talk, like he's such a morally upstanding person who knows how to lead this country. BS. He had four years, and we're in deep crap more than we've ever been in the past two generations. And what's he doing rather than focusing on the issues? Insulting his opponents like a measly third grade reject.

Get him the hell out of Washington. There are plenty more golf balls to be hit, horses to be ridden, fish to be caught, and morons to be duped in Crawford, Texas, than there are in DC.

Bye-bye, Bushie. You have until January.

-Pop


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SodaPopinski</b>!
> 
> Please, share with us what these "lies and distortions about Bush" were from the film. Surely you can come up with just a few, considering the length of the film that was apparently "full" of them.


Guess you missed that boat, but it is currently convential wisdom and widely agreed to be true that Michael Moore is a propogandist with a heavily partisan (read: anti-Bush) agenda.

The only American's that take Michael Moore seriously are certain elements of the reactionary, emotional, far left and those that haven't much studied the issues involved.

Michael Moore is an outstanding filmaker. Michael Moore has a knack for uncovering some interesting things, getting juicy quotes, etc. Michael Moore is not interesting in being a journalist to aid in the discerning of "truth". Michael Moore has already made up his mind what is truth in the world. He just wants everyone else to think that way and he thinks clever and entertaining propoganda is the way to do it.

It certainly has gotten him a lot of attention and made him a lot of money.

Here is one of MANY articles which are all too happy to list the errors, lies and distortions of Mr. Moore. This one written by a member of the left:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

a little taste:



> To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery


----------



## The Pup (Jan 25, 2004)

That article is a very good read. I'm sure some of my caucasian friends along with many of my african american friends who are quite liberal will have a different view of Moore after I forward that article to them. 

The bravery shown by anyone on that plane that was brought down by the passengers and the terror felt by all those who died that day is moronically dismissed by Moore in his unending pursuit of his clearly non-objective agenda. 

Opinions are great.....they are some the freedoms of our great country. Chosen ignorance is to be laughed at and bigotry in all forms is unnacceptable. 

*Masbee*....thank you for the link.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> Guess you missed that boat, but it is currently convential wisdom and widely agreed to be true that Michael Moore is a propogandist with a heavily partisan (read: anti-Bush) agenda.
> 
> The only American's that take Michael Moore seriously are certain elements of the reactionary, emotional, far left and those that haven't much studied the issues involved.
> ...


Christopher Hitchens is a nutjob who was more or less kicked out of the UK because of his ramblings and knack for stirring up controversy. Any of his columns should be taken with a grain of salt. Michael Moore certainly has an agenda, but I'm not sure how you can argue with the facts put before you in F9/11.

I'm still waiting to hear the distortions and lies put forth in the film.

-Pop


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SodaPopinski</b>!
> Christopher Hitchens is a nutjob who was more or less kicked out of the UK because of his ramblings and knack for stirring up controversy. Any of his columns should be taken with a grain of salt. Michael Moore certainly has an agenda, but I'm not sure how you can argue with the facts put before you in F9/11.
> 
> -Pop


Ad Hominem alert!

There is an article to read if you click on the link. Attacking this left author who is critical of Moore by claiming HE is the nutjob who rambles with a knack for stirring up controversy seems a tad ironic, no?

As I previously stated, this is but one of many, many critiques of Moore's films. Just look and you will find them.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> Guess you missed that boat, but it is currently convential wisdom and widely agreed to be true that Michael Moore is a propogandist with a heavily partisan (read: anti-Bush) agenda.


Excellent post, Masbee.

It's interesting that I'd quoted from the Slate article you'd linked to in my .sig some time back:



> ... if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised.


Ed O.


----------



## keebs3 (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>SodaPopinski</b>!
> 
> 
> Christopher Hitchens is a nutjob who was more or less kicked out of the UK because of his ramblings and knack for stirring up controversy. Any of his columns should be taken with a grain of salt. Michael Moore certainly has an agenda, but I'm not sure how you can argue with the facts put before you in F9/11.
> ...


I hate to do this, cause generally I'm against Bush. The problem is, I'm against Kerry as well. I'm tried of the lies all around, and I've discovered it is hard to get a straight answer out of either side... kinda makes you want to give up. I know the film is long, but here are some misconceptions (not all direct lies, but definetly subjects that he wanted to munipulate) found in the first 10 minutes alone:

The scene of the Florida Celebration was not an actual celebration for Gore's victory, it was held earlier in the day, before the polls even opened.

Then he goes on to make it seem like all the channels had Gore the winner in Florida, then Fox news came along and said otherwise because Bush knew some of the network personel. But here are the times all the major networks called Gore, then Bush, as the winner of Florida:

NBC called Gore at 7:49
CBS called Gore at 7:50
Fox News (yes the same!0 called GORE at 7:52
ABC called Gore at 8:02

Then:

Fox called Bush at 2:16 
NBC called Bush at 2:17 
CBS called Bush at 2:17
ABC called Bush at 2:20

Fox had nothing to do with who won florida, all the networks reported a virtually the same time.

Then the issue of the African Americans not getting to vote for being black. After a review of state records, it showed no one was discriminated against... not to mention that Moore never said anything about Gore trying to toss out Military votes from people over seas.

Then he shows a news article that has the title: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." -This was a completly made up article by Moore, no such headline accured in that newspaper.

During the Senate scene, Moore directly said that one after another, blacks were told to sit down and shut up.. his is a cheap shot because they were never told this in any way.

Then, during the scene of his inauguration day, Moore said it was out of control, his limo got pelted with eggs, and no one had ever excperienced something like this on their inauguration.
First, someone did, Nixon had a protest of OVER half the amount of people during that Bush had protesting against him... and if you look at the crowd during those scenes, they look calm and orderly, plus ONE person threw ONE egg at his limo.

Then we have the comments on his aproval ratings and his vacation time, although Moore said his pre 9/11 ratings were 45%, they never dropped below 50%. Moore says he was on vacation 46% of the time, is what he doesn't say is that includes weekends, and time at camp david, where I'm sure he can get plenty done.

Ok, thats enough for now. Again, I'm not really arguing for bush or against moore, just trying to show all the sides, which is what more of us NEED to do. Again these were in the first 10 minutes of the film.

JMK


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SodaPopinski</b>!
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear the distortions and lies put forth in the film.
> 
> -Pop


There is no reason for me to make yet another list. Why reinvent the wheel.

The first link you didn't like, guess cause that author is very opinionated and writes in a forceful style.

As you like Moore, I assumed you liked that style. Didn't know you only like it when you agree with the direction of the argument.

Here is a link to something done in a "list" stlye. It is almost like a legal brief. And it is more neutral in tone. The author did vote for Ralph Nader in 2000, so I will save you the trouble of attacking his character for being so "crazy" to do such a thing by admitting in advance he is an unworthy person.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>keebs3</b>!
> 
> 
> I hate to do this, cause generally I'm against Bush. The problem is, I'm against Kerry as well. I'm tried of the lies all around, and I've discovered it is hard to get a straight answer out of either side... kinda makes you want to give up. I know the film is long, but here are some misconceptions (not all direct lies, but definetly subjects that he wanted to munipulate) found in the first 10 minutes alone:
> ...


5 stars for u! Nicely Put!


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

59 deceits in Farenheit 9/11


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> Guess you missed that boat, but it is currently convential wisdom and widely agreed to be true that Michael Moore is a propogandist with a heavily partisan (read: anti-Bush) agenda.


I certainly am no fan of Michael Moore, though I haven't bothered to watch Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm curious, though, about a couple of things:

Should there be any restrictions on films? Are commercials different than films? Does it make a difference who pays for the films or commercials (if they're not for profit)?

Also, does Kerry and Bush not condemning the film and commercial cancel each other out? Are they both 'ok', since the other one didn't do it either? Is this just a calculus to make sure 'our' guy is no worse than 'their' guy, and no condemnation or feeling of guilt required?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>FeloniusThunk</b>!
> 
> Should there be any restrictions on films? Are commercials different than films? Does it make a difference who pays for the films or commercials (if they're not for profit)?


IMO, no. No holds should be barred. Both sides have a lot of money (counting the "527" groups, Dems are spending more than Repubs this election year). Let 'em at it!


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I loved this:



> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> I have no problem with someone that supports a woman's right to choose, supports civil unions, and providing services to those that are less fortunate (I'm sorry if I'm humanitarian enough to give up a little extra money so that hungry people can get food and children can learn to read).


Nobody is ever prevented from sending a check to the US Government with an extra donation to help people get food. Though usually people prefer to send via a charity, since that is a lot more efficient.

Still, it amuses me that you equate *taxes* with your willingness to give up money. If you are in favour of higher taxes, you are actually in favour of *other people* being compelled to give up more money, since you are always welcome to do so.

It is not big-hearted or compassionate to force someone else to give up their money in order to give it to someone whom you believe needs it more. It is forced redistribution of wealth. Call a spade a spade.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I saw a poll recently which showed that among 5,000 or so people, 10% had seen Moore's latest movie. 12% had listened to Rush Limbaugh in the past week or two.

Which means that at least 1000 people (representing 20% of the electorate) are highly politically involved (since both Rush and Moore are focused on political issues).

And out of these 5,000 people, only a handful -- less than 1% -- had done both. Which means the disconnect between the right and the left is pretty complete, since we live in different worlds. We get different information, and we draw very different conclusions.

Has anyone on this list both seen the movie and listened to Rush in the last month?


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> I loved this:
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I must say, I have spent a significant amount of time in Europe and do perfer a more "socialist"...by which I mean larger redistrubution of wealth then capitalism provides...ideas of a place such as Sweeden. Don't get me wrong, I still prefer America for many, many things (to quelm all of those "why don't you move there" people), but coming from an upper-middle class family that lives in a poor area, I guess I have a unique perspective. 


On another note, I haven't listened to Rush (I don't know when he's on), but I have seen Farenheit 9/11 and DO watch Fox News (O'Reilly/Hannity/Cavuto) and occasionally listen to Michael Savage/O'Reilly/Hannity on the radio when I get bored. A week ago I got stuck in some traffic on 84 while going to Eastern Oregon, and so I got a healthy dose then. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with just about everything that these hardcore conservatives push for. Despite them not really being "fair and balanced", I listen to them for their side of the story....and some entertainment value as I listen to O'Reilly interrupt and browbeat any rare liberal he brings to come on his show. 

Believe me, living in a large Fraternity where 78 of the 83 guys are conservative provides me with enough of the other view point. 

I feel that it is important to be informed, and you don't get the "whole picture" from just one source. But at the same time, I hardly ever find myself agreeing with O'Reilly. I guess not having school or a job right now gives me the extra time to follow the politics.


Yeah to me....the Critical Thinking Party.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Here's what Kerry had to say yesterday . . .
> 
> 
> ...


Deleted. No personal attacks.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> Fair enough. I must say, I have spent a significant amount of time in Europe and do perfer a more "socialist"...by which I mean larger redistrubution of wealth then capitalism provides...ideas of a place such as Sweeden.


Fair enough. 



> On another note, I haven't listened to Rush (I don't know when he's on), but I have seen Farenheit 9/11 and DO watch Fox News (O'Reilly/Hannity/Cavuto) and occasionally listen to Michael Savage/O'Reilly/Hannity on the radio when I get bored. A week ago I got stuck in some traffic on 84 while going to Eastern Oregon, and so I got a healthy dose then. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with just about everything that these hardcore conservatives push for.


I recommend Rush. I don't care as much for the other guys, and I find Savage positively evil (his anti-immigration stance is the worst thing about the nativist right wing in America, IMO). But Rush is thoughtful, always polite to callers, and often thinks of angles others miss. He is also reliably entertaining. His line is basically that of an idealistic republican, and he cares more for domestic politics than international, FWIW.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> Guess you missed that boat, but it is currently convential wisdom and widely agreed to be true that Michael Moore is a propogandist with a heavily partisan (read: anti-Bush) agenda.


Partisan describes every commentator in the political landscape. He's considered a "propogandist" by conservatives and others who have a reason to dislike what he says.



> The only American's that take Michael Moore seriously are certain elements of the reactionary, emotional, far left and those that haven't much studied the issues involved.


Ad hominem alert!

You're simply attacking the people who take Moore seriously, rather than providing any reason why they shouldn't.

It's as valid to say the only people who dismiss Moore are close-minded, emotional, far right and not possessed of any critical-thinking ability.



> Michael Moore is an outstanding filmaker. Michael Moore has a knack for uncovering some interesting things, getting juicy quotes, etc. Michael Moore is not interesting in being a journalist to aid in the discerning of "truth".


More accurately, he reports the truth as he sees it, just like any non-beat reporter. Beat reporters provide the facts and nothing but the facts. Editorialists, column-writers, TV commentators, etc, all believe they're "aiding in the search for truth" by providing their own interpretation of the facts. Moore fits right within that group. He doesn't just gather facts and list them on the screen in list form, any more than a Wall Street Journal opinion columnist does. He takes the facts and throws an interpretation on them, based on his world view. And he uses his craft to argue his case as persuasively as possible.



> Michael Moore has already made up his mind what is truth in the world. He just wants everyone else to think that way and he thinks clever and entertaining propoganda is the way to do it.


Sub out "Michael Moore" and sub in anyone who is not a pure reporter and it reads just the same. Moore is just better at it than most, which infuriates those who disagree with him.



> It certainly has gotten him a lot of attention and made him a lot of money.


Subtle attempt to discredit Moore not on any valid attack but with the insinuation that he's just trying to earn money and fame.



> Here is one of MANY articles which are all too happy to list the errors, lies and distortions of Mr. Moore.


Pretty much all of the claims laid out by those "MANY articles" have been debunked by Moore. Moore has a standing offer of $50,000, or somesuch, for anyone who confronts him with a true lie or factual error. So far, no one has taken the challenge.

Clearly, you don't like Moore. That's cool. I don't like a lot of people in the media, Bill O'Reilly chief among them. But your insinuations that only overly-emotional wackos take him seriously and logical, reasoned types (presumably such as yourself) know he's just a liar are fairly absurd and just as propogandist as you claim Moore is.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Moore fits right within that group. He doesn't just gather facts and list them on the screen in list form, any more than a Wall Street Journal opinion columnist does. He takes the facts and throws an interpretation on them, based on his world view.


I do not think this is correct. Moore does much more than take certain facts and draw conclusions from them. On many occasions, he *invented* facts.

The most eggregious example?

http://www.newsletters.newsweek.msnbc.com/id/5575561/



> The Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington said Friday it sent a letter to Moore and the film’s distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., asking for an apology for using what it said was a doctored front page in his movie.
> 
> The paper is seeking $1 in damages.
> 
> ...


I'd say inventing a newspaper headline counts as an outright falsehood, and something which discredits Michael Moore entirely. One does not "accidentally" invent a newspaper headline, have a fake one made up, and then shoot it on film as if it were real.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> I'd say inventing a newspaper headline counts as an outright falsehood, and something which discredits Michael Moore entirely.


This is old news. First of all, he didn't "invent it." If you bothered to read your own source, the newspaper asserts that it existed in their paper, just not on the front page.

Second of all, it's absurd to say that moving the headline, in a split-second newspaper prop, completely discredits Moore. That's like saying one of Bush's English screw-ups completely discredits his entire speech.

Moore is a film-maker, and he was using that headline as a prop to describe a *true* sentiment at the time he was talking about...that most media outlets were reporting Gore would have won recounts.

So, Moore wasn't lying about his point...moving the headline was simply to illustrate a *true* point. There was nothing deceptive in the intent.

The point of that split-second was not to make audiences think, "The Pantagraph reported Gore would have won any recount!" If that *had* been the point, then yes, it would be highly deceptive. But, in fact, I seriously doubt anyone really noticed or cared which paper it was.

The point of that split-second was to make audiences think, "Media outlets were reporting Gore would have won Florida under just about any recount standard." And that was perfectly true, at that time. So Moore's prop was just effective film-making in illustrating a perfectly valid, true point.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

If anything, Moore just gives the republican party someone to rally against. 

I'd suggest looking on Moore's website, where he has 9 pages of news stories to back up his claims. True, some of the footage might of been shown in a misleading manner. But who went to that film that either didn't already agree with him or vehemently disagrees with him?

If I were to call myself a democrat, I'd rather have Michael Moore, Bill Maher, John Stewart and William Farrell fighting for my cause than Rush, O'Reilly, Savage or ANN COULTER. Those people are INSANE. 

Basically, Moore gets the general feeling right in F9/11. He tried to put too many "outragoues" things in there, but America is pretty dumb, they might not get it when you say "Suadi Arabia, our allies, fund more terrorism than Iraq could ever afford to." 
You need examples and over exagerations to get the troops rallied. That's what he did, and I can't blame him, because the generality of the whole issue was perfectly presented.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

a local angle on this...

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/109300303292321.xml

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Pup</b>!
> 
> The Senator says we are suppose to listen to the 3 men who agreed with him and ingnore the 19 that said he was full of ...it.


Ad hominem alert!

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

btw... here's the mission statement of the source I linked above.

http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=70

STOMP


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Ad hominem alert!
> ...


Thanks for those links, STOMP. I think those significantly prove what a farce those ads are. In a related story, the Bush campaign is under serious risk of being investigated by the FEC for campaign violations in coordinating with a "527 group," the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Some serious stuff here, ladies and gentlemen:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/

Hopefully, the Republicans will finally reap what they've sown for consistently taking the low road.

-Pop


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SodaPopinski</b>!
> In a related story, the Bush campaign is under serious risk of being investigated by the FEC for campaign violations in coordinating with a "527 group," the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Some serious stuff here, ladies and gentlemen:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/
> ...


As "serious" as the currently pending charges against Democratic soft-money (527 group) spending allegedly at the direction of the Kerry campaign?

From that same msnbc article you linked:


> Any formal ties between the Bush campaign and the veterans group would be against the law. Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth is organized as a non-party, independent political group under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, and coordination between a 527 group and a presidential campaign is illegal.
> 
> The Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney campaign filed a similar complaint last March that accuses the Media Fund, America Coming Together and several other anti-Bush groups of illegal use of so-called soft money (unlimited donations) and of illegal coordination with the Kerry campaign.


Hopefully ALL political parties will finally reap what they have sown (if any of the charges are true). But I wouldn't hold my breath.



> Any legal resolution of the matter would likely take months, if not years, campaign law experts told MSNBC.com.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

It's amazing how riled up the democrats get when someone uses their own tactics on them. 

60 vets. Some have purple hearts. Some were pow's. Some are Texans, some aren't. Some are Republicans, some are Democrats.

All are liars? 

No one can doubt their motive. It's as clear as day. They don't believe Kerry should be president. 

Should they be vilified for that? Should they be censored for speaking out for what they believe and what they know first hand?

I hope to see their critics held to the same standard.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> It's amazing how riled up the democrats get when someone uses their own tactics on them.
> 
> 60 vets. Some have purple hearts. Some were pow's. Some are Texans, some aren't. Some are Republicans, some are Democrats.
> ...


Why not just stick to basketbal topics?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Air America</b>!
> 
> Why not just stick to basketbal topics?


This is not a basketball thread. OT threads *are* allowed. If you don't want to participate in any given thread, then don't. 

PM me if you need clarification. Thanks.

Ed O.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> It's amazing how riled up the democrats get when someone uses their own tactics on them.
> 
> 60 vets. Some have purple hearts. Some were pow's. Some are Texans, some aren't. Some are Republicans, some are Democrats.
> ...



OMG. Do you actually believe this? The democrats don't need to use these kind of tactics...and they shouldn't be credited to them. Rather, Democrats win when people THINK. I find it ironic because it always seems to be the Republicans who come out firing first with the smut...and it makes it difficult for the democrats because if they are man enough not to retaliate, they take a hit in the polls becuase these untruths aren't dealt with. 

In contrast, if Kerry fights back, as he is doing now (thankfully), the story gets spread in the media, which is another win for the Republicans. Its one of those situations where, regardless if the story is true or complete BS, once people hear it, it sticks and makes a lasting impression (on the common, uniformed voter)

In this campaign the Republicans have the advantage of having the candidate in office, because it is much more frowned upon to heavily criticize the President then it is just a candidate. (Which is why I love comedians like John Stewart who have the balls to do it). 

But I digress. You do realize that Mr. Karl Rove (AKA The Master of Smut and Dirty campaigning) has been running the strings behind the Republican party for quite some time. 

Perhaps some of the Swift Boat veterans are democrats....but I haven't heard that before. What I've heard about the group is that they are ENTIRELY partisan and funded by Republican backers. 

I mean, there are people that support Kerry....like the guy he saved...who by the way is a Republican. Perhaps you should read that information at Fact Check, as they consistantly do a pretty good job of distinguishing the facts from the untruths from both the campaigns...


Talkhard...did it ever register that perhaps you don't look at it from every angle...don't have all the insider facts....and maybe are spreading propaganda yourself?

I don't mean that as a personal attack or anything, its just that you seem to start all of these threads that are so PRO Bush and that lack significant substance that it makes me wonder if you really try to be an objective viewer of the world around you or if you mind is completly made up and are just trying to convince people to jump on your bandwagon...whether there is a legit reason or not. 

One thing that I know if that I pride myself on my objectivity and critical thinking....my critical thinking skills are what allow me to be such a great student/person. And I know that I wouldn't be pushing information if I weren't convinced of it....after looking at it very critically and under a suspicious light. 

Of course you don't have to do the same...but I think its a pretty beneficial habit to have.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> This is not a basketball thread. OT threads *are* allowed. If you don't want to participate in any given thread, then don't.
> ...


Go DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

*Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?!*

Another article that should be involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html



> ...A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.
> 
> Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.
> 
> ...


Stuart


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Target</b>!
> It's amazing how riled up the democrats get when someone uses their own tactics on them.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironic

Sort of funny to be accused of being too riled up by someone who seemingly either starts every other political thread or at least can't let one pass by without trolling florescent pink power bait rhetoric in hopes of provoking a reaction. Classic pot/kettle dynamic accusing the left of being the originator of the bleep that the right has been serving up for years. Ever hear of a guy named Newt?

I'm 37 years old and have voted in every Presidential election that I've been eligible to. I've never voted for a Democrat, but I will be this time. I doubt I'm an anomaly. Besides opposing Bush on more then a couple of actual issues, I've consistently found the tone and tactics from his side (Karl Rove etc), in both this and the last election, to be the most underhanded/cynical I've seen. It's been proven very effective to fund minions to go negative, while pretending (at least initially) to be outside the fray. Why care if it's eventually shown to be your $$$ pulling the strings behind the scenes, as long as the initial impression is made/damage is done? 

A. Because eventually the people catch on. Fool me once...

Smearing the opponent seems to be W's bread 'n butter political technique (which so nicely compliments the meatish product 'n cheeze whiz sect that backs him in the bible belt as long as he continues to regularly publically pimp his supposive religious beliefs). A lot of people get turned off by this sort of stuff, which might help explain why such a low percentage of Americans voted in the last Presidential election (if I recall correctly, it was the lowest turnout ever percentage wise). It's my guess that American voters are much more motivated this time around as W has effectively polarized and riled up much of the country.

I definitely disagree that the Swift Boat group's motives are "clear as day." It seems to be unfolding as a pretty muddy concoction of politics, doublespeak, and actual offense that some took to Kerry's postwar actions. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turned out that back room deals were cut/promises were made to some of these guys to contradict their earlier sworn statements/actions and official military records. We'll see... this thing is sure to unravel further.

STOMP


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

This story keeps getting better and better.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto.../officerrecallsboatmissionwithkerry&printer=1

Swift boat officer, long silent, backs Kerry regarding events that led to Silver Star.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...040822/ts_washpost/a21239_2004aug21&printer=1

Washington Post investigation states that the accounts of both sides surrounding the events that led to Kerry's Bronze Star are questionable.



> An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I was surfing the net tonight and found proof that *George W. Bush* did in fact serve the Texas Air National Guard.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> One thing that I know if that I pride myself on my objectivity and critical thinking....my critical thinking skills are what allow me to be such a great student/person.


Don't forget your modesty -- that also allows you to be such a great person!


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> OMG. Do you actually believe this? The democrats don't need to use these kind of tactics...and they shouldn't be credited to them. Rather, Democrats win when people THINK.


I find this very interesting. I know that for years, it has been a given that the Democrats are the party of intellectuals, and that the Republicans are the party of racist boorish white men.

But I would think that the recent revival of the right wing would put paid to this impression. 

Consider: the most dynamic policy ideas are being put forward by the Right, not the Left. Democrats who used to pioneer such bold new ideas as the space program, war on communism in Vietnam, LBJ's War on Poverty and Great Society, of civil rights and feminism, are now reduced to no new ideas at all. The fountain of ideas which was marxism and even European-style redistribution of wealth have been thoroughly discredited -- so discredited that politicians no longer urge that the United States become more like the USSR, or even France. The Democratic party seems stuck playing the role of the "conservative" -- of trying to preserve the status quo. No new ideas were advanced at the Democratic convention. No bold initiatives have come out of the party in a very long time, and the big changes of the Clinton years in welfare and a balanced budget were forced by the Right. Even some of the newest ideas such as Gay Marriage and defending partial-birth abortions are avoided like the plague by the democratic leadership in the Senate and by John Kerry. 

On the Right, thinkers abound. The entire "Neoconservative" movement was founded by Democrats who started thinking, not by old elitist conservatives. Leaders in this area were JFK voters and followers, and they consider themselves promoting the same things JFK promoted when he was President -- low taxes, promotion of democracy, military strength. And now the Right is advocating some very bold ideas -- the idea that America's values of liberty and freedom should be available to all peoples even if they were born outside the borders of the United States. Promotion (by some) of more immigration and libertarian principles. Fundamental changes in health care to make it possible for market reforms to improve service and reduce costs. Market reform of Social Security so those paying in can choose to invest their payments in the stock market. Massive tort reform to keep lawyers from crippling medicine and business. And a healthy argument about replacing the IRS and the nutty tax system with a flat tax or a sales tax. 

You may like or hate these ideas. But clearly the Right is overflowing with ideas. And they did not come out of thin air. They came out of think-tanks and a very healthy exchange of opinions and information. In short, the policy vitality of the Republicans today suggests that they, not the Democrats, are the party of thinkers. 

Consider: the knee-jerk reaction is that guns cause crime. And then John Lott did a very thorough study, showing that the ownership of guns (carry permits) in the United States dramatically *reduce* violent crime. This study has been mirrored here in the UK, where gun ownership and crime have been shown to be in inverse proportion to each other, all the way back back to the 17th century. Here in the UK it is assumed that guns are pure evil, while the crime rate has skyrocketed (the UK has been on a crime spree since handguns were banned, despite many more police officers. One is 6 times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York). But the intellectual concensus in the United States is coalescing around the conclusion that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens work well to prevent crime; the main question is precisely how much. The Left, OTOH, has been left totally flat-footed. Look at the "Assault Weapon" ban which expires about now -- it is happening almost entirely in silences, because the thinkers now see that the Right was correct on this issue. Anti-gun positions are now based on emotion, and pro-gun positions are based on intellectual argument. Which is the party of thinkers?

Consider: the party of change WRT public schools is the Republican party. Republicans support charter schools, school vouchers, home schooling, even a selection of public schools -- a vibrant smorgasbord of options to choose from, under the basic idea that competition between schools will make a better product, much as it does for any other product or service.

The Democrats are not the party of ideas or thinkers. Dominated by the Teacher's unions (was it 10% or 40% of delegates to the Convention were public school employees of one kind or another?), the Democrats are the party of the Status Quo. Year after year, public schools get worse, and more and more money is spent on education, and schools get worse and more $$ ... the Democrats do not want any new ideas. They have dug in to defend the status quo, as failed and elitist and pathetic as it is. All they will advocate is more money, something which has been tried and failed for the past 40 years. No Thinking here.

On the Left, the main campaign platform on foreign policy is that the US should make sure the French and Germans are happy. While on the Right, the platform is that the United States should spread democracy and freedom from tyrants, alone if necessary. To me, it is clear that the Democratic position is not the position of the intellectually active, but of the person who believes Jacques Chirac is the right guy to determine America's foreign policy.

So I urge you to critically evaluate my claims, and ask yourself: which is the party of those who think?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Anyone who has said the Swift Boat Vets have an axe to grind are right. By their own admission, they are as focused on the post-war John Kerry as on the man who collected three purple hearts without spending a day in the hospital. 

Want proof? 

http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/sellout.mpg

This is not just about Vietnam. It is about very old wounds inflicted by John Kerry on the men fighting in Vietnam.

And, whether funded by Bush supporters or not, the damage is done by someone who is surely NOT part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_mccain.html



> Despite today’s allegations in the New York Times that the group is a front for
> Bush political operatives, the harshest words for Kerry in the ad come from
> Paul Galanti, a former POW who served as Virginia campaign chairman for
> Bush rival Sen. John McCain (R.) and who was also an active member of
> ...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Another vet's opinion...

"_I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country._" 

Colin Powell's autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148

STOMP


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Do *NOT* vote for Kerry! He is a *FRAUD!* At least Bush is usually consistent in his actions. Kerry will say anything to get elected and has changed his position on issues so many times that one has no idea where he stands.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Thanks for the tip... 

You're right, I should vote for Bush. 

He stands up for just about everything that I hate - and he has the presence of a poor man's Dan Quail.

I'll get right on that.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> Thanks for the tip...
> 
> You're right, I should vote for Bush.
> ...


He certainly has more presence than John "The Chameleon" Kerry.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Perfection</b>!
> 
> OMG. Do you actually believe this? The democrats don't need to use these kind of tactics...and they shouldn't be credited to them. Rather, Democrats win when people THINK. I find it ironic because it always seems to be the Republicans who come out firing first with the smut...and it makes it difficult for the democrats because if they are man enough not to retaliate, they take a hit in the polls becuase these untruths aren't dealt with.
> 
> .. etc. etc.. etc..



OMG. Do you actually belive this? :grinning: 

I'm sorry, but I found your whole post doing the same thing that you blame Target for doing. Maybe it's really Republicans who win when people THINK.

Don't believe the Democrats are the poor victim here. They don't just sit on there hands until the big bad Republicans run a smeer campaign. Both sides do it. They don't wait to get hit first with it. Both sides come out on the offense throwing smut and accusation around.

I'm a Republican, and I'm not real happy with Bush, but I don't see ANYTHING in Kerry that's tells me he's going to do anything better. Oh, one thing he'll do better at is lying/flip-flopping. I know ALL politicians lie, but Kerry can't keep his story straight.

BTW, I love this little arguement between parties and the whole Kerry military history. The whole medals thing is funny. I do find that the purple hearts he so called earned are shady. I've heard of other vets receiving purple hearts, and all of them actually got injured. I know his bronze medal is minor compared to the others, but after our CO received one while serving in the first gulf war, I think they are worthless. The guy stayed in a hotel the whole time and drove around in an SUV. It's not always what you did, but who you are and your rank that gets you the medal.


GO BLAZERS!

GO REPUBLICANS!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I'm not sure what being a so-called "chameleon" has to do with presence. Could Bush even spell the word?

As far as I've seen, Kerry can complete a sentence without having to put a foot in his mouth, pause for breath, or look dumbfounded by the effort.

In regards to where Kerry stands, if you're honestly curious (I doubt you are), go here...

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

I don't understand lambasting a guy for the so called "flip-flopper" thing. It seems like party-line BS to me...

For one, these bills are not black and white as people have been trying to insinuate. Sometimes a bill might be for a cause you agree with, but you don't agree with the approach - or you don't like the crap that they tack on at the last minute - or maybe you feel there is no way to pay for it without going into deep debt.

You can be for a CAUSE and still be against a BILL. There's a distinct difference.

Additionally, the guy has been a senator for 20 years. Raise your hand if you haven't changed your mind on a single issue over the last 20 years... nobody? okay. Kerry has been charged with representing people of his state... even if he never changed his mind, don't you think he should listen to his voters in any changes they make?

Let's move on to the important issue: Puppies...

"Do you like puppies, yes or no? Well, which is it Kerry?! Yesterday, you said you hated them, now you have a golden retriever!!!"


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> I'm not sure what being a so-called "chameleon" has to do with presence. Could Bush even spell the word?
> 
> As far as I've seen, Kerry can complete a sentence without having to put a foot in his mouth, pause for breath, or look dumbfounded by the effort.
> ...


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> I'm not sure what being a so-called "chameleon" has to do with presence. Could Bush even spell the word?
> 
> As far as I've seen, Kerry can complete a sentence without having to put a foot in his mouth, pause for breath, or look dumbfounded by the effort.
> ...


The guy has probably changed his mind like 20 times just in the race let alone how many times he has probably changed it in his 20 years. 

So far off the top of my head he has changed his stance on:

War (Was for it at start, then against it, now for it again?)

Taxes(Says Lower, Vote's for raising of gas tax by 50c, wants to balance budget in 3 years which means dont expect a lower tax in who knows how long)

Military(Says he supports them, but votes against funding for them)

Ill post more later have to leave right now.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

From what I've seen, Kerry has been pretty consistent in his war stance.

He voted to give Bush the authority on the information he had... like most, he took issue with the shady evidence and thinks that the war isn't being handled the way it should.

He's against Bush's war, and for his own - the way he thinks he could do it better. Right or wrong, it's not flip-flopping.

From what I heard, the war funding had a lot of negative riders that they put on daring people to vote against it and seem "unpatriotic".


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*The Daily Show on the "controversy"*

From the Daily Show:

STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?

CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.

STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.

CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story.

STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.

STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

STEWART: So, basically, you're saying that this back-and-forth is never going to end.

CORDDRY: No, Jon -- in fact a new group has emerged, this one composed of former Bush colleages, challenging the president's activities during the Vietnam era. That group: Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. They've apparently got some things to say about a certain Halloween party in '71 that involved trashcan punch and a sodomized piñata. Jon -- they just want to set the record straight. That's all they're out for.

STEWART: Well, thank you Rob, good luck out there. We'll be right back.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*The LA Times on the "controversy"*

LA Times:



> The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.
> 
> Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.
> 
> ...


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*The NY Times on the "controversy"*

Paul Krugman (edited down considerably):



> One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.
> 
> How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> Do *NOT* vote for Kerry! He is a *FRAUD!* At least Bush is usually consistent in his actions. Kerry will say anything to get elected and has changed his position on issues so many times that one has no idea where he stands.


This is probably the main reason why Clinton said the Democrats win when people think. Conservatives mouth talking points with no understanding of reality. Those who *think*, realize that such repeated lies are hollow.

The idea that John Kerry was a "flip-flopper" in the Senate is patently deceptive. Every US Congressman could be painted as a "flip-flopper" because bills are a bit more complex than being "about healthcare" or "about building more tanks."

Bills also have these things called "riders" which are additional legislation that is tacked on to the original bill. If the bill goes through, the riders go through, too. The riders often have nothing to do with the original bill. They are attempts to make the bill more palatable to people who don't like the original bill.

Therefore, you could have two bills, offered up, say, five years apart.

One is a universal health care bill with no riders. Kerry votes for it.

The second is also a universal health care bill, but it has a rider for cuts in spending on education and a rider to starting logging in protected Alaskan wilderness. Kerry votes against this bill due to the riders.

Deceptive conservative media outlet (let's just call it FOX News, hypothetically) claims that Kerry "flip-flopped" on universal health care...first voting for it, then voting against it.

Anyone with some sense can see that that's clearly untrue. He voted for health care and then against cuts in education and damaging protected wilderness.

But because conservatives repeat their lies enough (most of them don't even know enough about our political system to understand that they're mouthing lies), it starts to become "common knowledge" that Kerry is a flip-flopper, when that's an uninformed contention. The conservatives have slogan-making and brainwashing via consistent repetition down to a science and handily outdo Democrats on that. That's why Democrats need people to think in order to win. They'll lose the brainwashed vote.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> This is probably the main reason why Clinton said the Democrats win when people think. Conservatives mouth talking points with no understanding of reality. Those who *think*, realize that such repeated lies are hollow.


I think I know something of reality, and I am also someone who "thinks". My earlier post on this thread have come from no "talking points" -- I form my own opinion.

We just happen to think different things. That does not make either one of us stupid or unthinking. It just makes one of us incorrect.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/24/do2402.xml



> "of course" they support our troops even though they oppose this war. But in practice they "support our troop" – singular – just Lieut Kerry and the handful of Swiftees willing to appear in public with him. The rest can go to hell and any of 'em impertinent enough to question the Senator are just "sleazoids" wading through their own backed-up latrine. I wonder if the Kerry campaign and its media cheerleaders have really thought this one through.
> 
> 
> Nothing the "sleazoids" say about Kerry is as bad as what he said about them 33 years ago in his testimony to Congress, when he informed the world that his comrades – his "band of brothers" – had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads" etc, throughout their time in Vietnam.
> ...





> And even if he'd never slimed his comrades, there's something ridiculous about a fellow with four months in Vietnam running as Ike, the Duke of Wellington and Alexander the Great rolled into one. On Sunday, after calling on the Senator to apologise to the 2.5 million veterans he slandered, Bob Dole couldn't resist chipping in his own view of Kerry's wounds.
> 
> "Here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of," he said. "I mean, they're all superficial wounds." Dole's right arm is withered and useless from wounds received in World War Two, and he never made a big hoo-ha about it in the '96 campaign.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> 
> I think I know something of reality, and I am also someone who "thinks". My earlier post on this thread have come from no "talking points" -- I form my own opinion.
> ...


If you don't repeat the uninformed lies, like Kerry being a flip-flopper, that the Republican party is pounding out like a drum beat, then my post doesn't refer to you.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> The idea that John Kerry was a "flip-flopper" in the Senate is patently deceptive.


You are correct. John Kerry was entirely consistent about some things. He never liked Reagan or his military buildup (until Reagan's death this year). He was also consistently liberal:

The National Journal, a non-partisan media outlet, found that Kerry is THE MOST LIBERAL Senator in the Senate, beating even Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, etc. ____Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a liberal group, agrees. All ratings scoring votes, from the right and the left, agree that John Kerry is all the way out there, hanging off the left wing of the airplane. 

Why isn't Kerry running on his radical voting record? Why focus on 90 days in Vietnam instead of 20 or so years in the Senate? Why won't the liberals on this list say something positive about his voting record, instead of just trying to say that everyone misunderstands it? Is it because he is so liberal? Is it because his attendance is so very poor? Or is it because there is nothing worth boasting about in 20 years of "service"?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> If you don't repeat the uninformed lies, like Kerry being a flip-flopper, that the Republican party is pounding out like a drum beat, then my post doesn't refer to you.


You seemed to be referring to ALL conservatives directly and Republicans generally in your post:



> This is probably the main reason why Clinton said the Democrats win when people think. Conservatives mouth talking points with no understanding of reality. Those who think, realize that such repeated lies are hollow.


(Maybe you meant "Conservatives mouthing talking points..." ? I guess that would make sense.)

As far as Kerry being a flip-flopper being a "lie" I don't think that's the case. I think it's almost certainly an oversimplification, and I think that any legislator can be called a flip-flopper, but I don't think it's an untruth that Kerry has been inconsistent during his time in office.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that--people should be able to change their mind for different circumstances. But the fact is that voters generally tend to like to know what they're getting, and Kerry's inconsistencies (however well-intentioned) are certainly a legitimate consideration in voting for candidates.

If people want to consider the evidence and disregard any alleged inconsistencies: that's cool. Failure to disregard doesn't mean that the person didn't think about it, though.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> You seemed to be referring to ALL conservatives directly and Republicans generally in your post:
> ...


True, that would have been more precise. In these discussions, it becomes all too easy to characterize too widely.



> As far as Kerry being a flip-flopper being a "lie" I don't think that's the case. I think it's almost certainly an oversimplification, and I think that any legislator can be called a flip-flopper, but I don't think it's an untruth that Kerry has been inconsistent during his time in office.


Insofar as all legislators are, he has been inconsistent. The view being propogated by the Republican *party* (by which I mean the entrenched power structure of the party) is that Kerry doesn't have firm stands and constantly shifts what he's for and against.

There is no more truth to that than any Senator, making the image being offered effectively a lie.



> But the fact is that voters generally tend to like to know what they're getting, and Kerry's inconsistencies (however well-intentioned) are certainly a legitimate consideration in voting for candidates.


In that case, we should never vote for any politician, because they all manifest "inconsistencies," however well-intentioned.

Bush stressed over and over that the US role was *not* to engage in nation-building, when he was campaigning. Over and over. Look at what he's running for re-election on: Nation-building in Iraq.

The Daily Show ran a tremendous montage, set as a debate between Governor Bush and President Bush, of what Bush said before election and during his Presidency.

So why is Kerry a "flip-flopper"? He isn't...the Republican party and their conservative media mouthpieces are simply much better than the Democrats in pounding lies into the US voter psyche. Maybe that's a point of pride for them, maybe not.

Yet, the people in this country who think Kerry is a flip-flopper and full of "well-intentioned inconsistencies," but Bush isn't, have clearly not thought very much about and investigated the issues.

That's my view.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> The Daily Show ran a tremendous montage, set as a debate between Governor Bush and President Bush, of what Bush said before election and during his Presidency.


Was the Daily Show setting forth a lie by showing those inconsistencies? I didn't see the piece, but assuming The Daily Show has any journalistic integrity (and I pray to God that it does, considering what a shockingly high number of people supposedly rely on it for their source of news) then I would guess they fairly used clips and Bush's own words to show potential hypocrisy.

If Bush has flip-flopped on issues that matter to voters, then the Democrats should call him on it, and it shouldn't be seen as a personal attack of a fabrication.



> Yet, the people in this country who think Kerry is a flip-flopper and full of "well-intentioned inconsistencies," but Bush isn't, have clearly not thought very much about and investigated the issues.
> 
> That's my view.


I respect your view, Minstrel. Absolutely. As far as I can tell, though, Kerry HAS has some pretty marked inconsistencies about pretty major issues such as NAFTA, the PATRIOT Act, and the Iraq war... whether those inconsistencies are because of a change in world events or because of political expediency, I don't know.

But the Republicans calling him on them--even to the point of painting him in an unfavorable light by not giving him the benefit of any doubts--is standard politics. I don't think it's any more out of bounds than the Democrats criticizing Bush for his handling of the economy in spite of pretty good growth over the past year or so and the country not having gone into a recession under this Bush. 

And I'm not saying that to say that what the Democrats are doing is wrong: the economy IS important, and it hasn't performed that well under G.W. Bush. and if the Democrats spin the performance to their benefit, then that's the way politics works in this country.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Was the Daily Show setting forth a lie by showing those inconsistencies?


They haven't been going out of their way to call Bush a "flip-flopper." I believe the segment was in response to Bush saying something along the lines of, "I've stuck by *all* my campaign promises."

Some inconsistencies are worse than others. Voting for and against something due to unfavourable riders is different from not shaping your executive policy by the principles you said you'd shape them by. In my opinion.



> I didn't see the piece, but assuming The Daily Show has any journalistic integrity (and I pray to God that it does, considering what a shockingly high number of people supposedly rely on it for their source of news) then I would guess they fairly used clips and Bush's own words to show potential hypocrisy.


They didn't chop sentences down and use sound bites to make him seem like he said things he never said. They showed him stating things he repeated over and over...I don't think anyone could claim The Daily Show was being deceptive.

One might, to be nicer to Bush, say that his "no nation-building" promise was made before 9/11 and that 9/11 fundamentally changed the world such that his promise no longer was correct policy. I don't know that I *necessarily* agree with that, but we were talking about even _well-intentioned inconsistencies_ being a legitimate worry to voters.



> I respect your view, Minstrel. Absolutely. As far as I can tell, though, Kerry HAS has some pretty marked inconsistencies about pretty major issues such as NAFTA, the PATRIOT Act, and the Iraq war... whether those inconsistencies are because of a change in world events or because of political expediency, I don't know.


I'm not sure which inconsistencies you're referring to in NAFTA and the Patriot Act, but on the Iraq war, the Republican machine is claiming incessantly that Kerry voted first for the war and then came out against it.

The truth is that he voted for _granting the President the ability to declare war_. Not for war, itself. Later, he came down against war under the particular circumstances it was declared.

Those are two separate things, logically. But it is easy to twist them into the same thing, especially with people who aren't going to check carefully.

And I agree that it is standard politics. Politics isn't about truth, it's about superior marketing. I wish the Democrats *would* toughen up and flog Bush unmercifully. Michael Moore did a nice job of it. (And, note, I'm not claiming everything Moore put forth was perfectly fair and accurate.)

As Clinton said, "I liked it when the opposition would attack me, because that meant I could hit back with both fists and not be seen as going negative."


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> And I agree that it is standard politics. Politics isn't about truth, it's about superior marketing. I wish the Democrats *would* toughen up and flog Bush unmercifully. Michael Moore did a nice job of it. (And, note, I'm not claiming everything Moore put forth was perfectly fair and accurate.)


I think the Dems thought long and hard about this, and decided that this kind of attack was going to lose votes. This is why the convention was so very watered down -- Al Gore didn't give the stem-winding speech he had been giving earlier this year, Howard Dean didn't explode, etc. 

At issue are the 3% of voters who are both likely and undecided. Both parties are wooing the heck out of them. And I think they are right that undecideds are not going to support a candidate because the other side becomes downright nasty. Michael Moore may have hurt the Dems more than he helped, esp. since Kerry has not kept him at arms length.

There are those of us who really do not care for the man you always seem to quote (Clinton). Yet while Clinton didn't won more than 43% of the vote, his support never foundered despite all the nasty things which could (and often were) truthfully said about him. Moderates in America can be swayed by fear and anger, but they don't want to be convinced that way. They prefer sunny optimism and sporting sentiments. Deaniacs don't offer that. Bill Clinton did, warts and all.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> There are those of us who really do not care for the man you always seem to quote (Clinton).


He's not my ideal, either, politically. But he's a brilliant person and politician, so I take what he says about politics seriously. He kicked the crap out of the Republicans at virtually every turn.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> He's not my ideal, either, politically. But he's a brilliant person and politician, so I take what he says about politics seriously. He [Clinton] kicked the crap out of the Republicans at virtually every turn.


Huh? Personally, he did very well. But under his leadership the Dems lost the House, the Senate, most state houses, and most governorships. Bill Clinton brought nobody along with him - he scorched the earth under the party. He was good at winning -- but only for himself.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

The Difference between the Right and the Left:



> If you challenge the heroism of someone who served in Vietnam, you're a liar and a Republican stooge.
> _
> But if you make unfounded and undocumented claims that the people you served with are war criminals, you're.... the Democratic candidate for the Presidency.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh? Personally, he did very well. But under his leadership the Dems lost the House, the Senate, most state houses, and most governorships. Bill Clinton brought nobody along with him - he scorched the earth under the party. He was good at winning -- but only for himself.


So? That's all fairly irrelevant.

He was never for the Democratic party. He did what he had to for his own success, and he was one of the most successful politicians of all-time. The Republicans mounted attack after attack on him and he destroyed them. The Gingrich Revolution died a fiery death against Clinton.

In the end, an individual is out for his own success first. I don't think there's a politician who would trade personal success for "party success." If you offered any politician the choice of "your party winning a lot of governorships, the Senate and the House, but you will be nothing" or "You will be President but your party will lose all those things," I don't believe a single politician would select choice one.

So you're trying to disparage Clinton's success by using rather meaningless metrics. I said that Clinton was one of the most brilliant politicians ever, and he was. Unquestionably. In his own battles, he destroyed the Republicans. Every time, essentially.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> The Difference between the Right and the Left:


The difference is that the Right makes comments simplified to the extent that they're incredibly stupid and nonsensical?

That's highly unfair to a lot of reasonable, non-idiotic conservatives. Please don't stereotype the Right so insultingly.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Please don't stereotype the Right so insultingly.


:rotf:


----------



## thebac (Aug 25, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> Consider: the knee-jerk reaction is that guns cause crime. And then John Lott did a very thorough study, showing that the ownership of guns (carry permits) in the United States dramatically *reduce* violent crime. This study has been mirrored here in the UK, where gun ownership and crime have been shown to be in inverse proportion to each other, all the way back back to the 17th century. Here in the UK it is assumed that guns are pure evil, while the crime rate has skyrocketed (the UK has been on a crime spree since handguns were banned, despite many more police officers. One is 6 times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York). But the intellectual concensus in the United States is coalescing around the conclusion that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens work well to prevent crime; the main question is precisely how much. The Left, OTOH, has been left totally flat-footed. Look at the "Assault Weapon" ban which expires about now -- it is happening almost entirely in silences, because the thinkers now see that the Right was correct on this issue. Anti-gun positions are now based on emotion, and pro-gun positions are based on intellectual argument. Which is the party of thinkers?


John Lott's "studies" have been widely discredited in his field of economics. What's more, I don't see how one can still take him seriously after he invented an admirer of himself on the Web to praise himself and attack his numerous critics. Heck, he admits to posting (on Amazon.com) a favorable review of his own book written by his son under that moniker. He's not a scientist, he's a partisan hack.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Bush/Swift Boat Lawyer resigns...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politi...dent/2004-08-25-bush-lawyer_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

STOMP


----------

