|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2004 05:15:25 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
A note to the reader, please be advised of the following.
In his reply Ron cited the Washington Times as his source; however, the reader should know the following about the Washington Times and its owner:
1. The Washington Times is owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church
2. The ties between Sun Myung Moon and the conservative right are well documented, as are the ties between Sun Myung Moon and the Bush Family:
3. Of course, our friends on the true "traditional/conservative" right don't even know how thoroughly the Republican party, their party, has been hijacked. |
Gosh, it's absolutely amazing what lengths you will go to to try to circumvent acknowledging the TRUTH.
I have to keep reminding myself that if the TRUTH is presented in a medium that can be tied through 6 degrees of separation to G.W. Bush, you won't accept it. That doesn't leave too many, but what the heck - let me try this one.
THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE LARRY KING INTERVIEW - AS POSTED ON CNN
"KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation."
Will you accept THAT ONE?????
Message edited by author 2004-09-16 17:17:40. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:29:39 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Will you accept THAT ONE????? |
Of course, you should've posted the CNN transcript to begin with, rather than the ultra-partisan-Sun Myung Moon-owned Washington Times.
By the way, here's a far more salient quote from that interview with Larry King:
KERRY: ...
"George Bush licensed -- stood up before America and said we're going to do anything, we're going to go the distance, smoke them out of their caves, wanted dead or alive. Well, they had him in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had the 10th Mountain Division, we had the Marines, we had the 101st Airborne. They had all our military capacity there.
What did we do when he was in the mountains of Tora Bora?
We turn to the Afghans, who one week earlier were fighting against us, and we said, you go up in the mountains after the world's number one terrorist and criminal. And what happened, he got out the back door, dispersed, and they've become more dangerous.
I believe they made a disastrous decision at a civilian military level, in command of the troops, that restrained our people, and the result was that we are now living with a more dangerous situation than we have to be."
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:34:11 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Axiom 1: People are stupid.
Everything else is a corollary. |
That is a great line and is unfortunately true. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 06:36:09 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
It seemed to me that during most of the reading (at least that which shows the president, which isn't a lot), he's not reading at all. He seemed to hardly be looking at the book. He, in fact, looks like a man with something serious on his mind, waiting for the appropriate point at which to graciously break away.
|
Truthfully, I think he was stumped at some of the words. Probably the first time in a long time that he even opened a book. Drip...drip...drip.
Message edited by author 2004-09-16 18:36:40. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 06:58:24 PM · #30 |
GW Bush, and his family, Neil, Jeb and Daddy have been doing business with some of the worst and most notorious criminals in the history of the world. Their oil companies and other ventures have been doing business with the likes of people connected with the BCCI scandal in the late 80's and early 90's. People such as Khalid Bin Mafousz and James Bath. Ken Lay of Enron of most recent criminal fame, and of course, we shouldn't forget the granddaddy of them all, Prescott Bush, who was not only doing business with the Nazi's, but wholeheartedly supporting them in everyway he could (as were many other industrialists and companies of the time).
Should we forget about how George Herbert Walker Bush, while VP during the Reagan administration and later as president of the US was heavily involved with Iran-Contra and was doing business with both the Ayatollah, and Saddam Hussein? Are we to forget that the Bush's were connected with the S&L scandal of the 80's which bilked billions of dollars out of the accounts of everyday US citizens?
Should we elect GW in 2004 hoping that he will do right with our social security funds? He wants to privatize Social security, just like the Reagan did in the 80's allowing all sorts of financial shenanigans to take place with the Savings and Loans companies.
GW put John Negroponte in charge of the US embassy in Iraq, one of the most notorious human rights violators, torturers and murders in the history of foreign relations. He was ambassador to Honduras in the 80's. Are we to allow a man who mislead this country into a war that didn't need to be fought a second term in office? I think not. The Bush family and their cohorts have been dealing with criminals from way back. This family needs to leave public office ASAP. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 07:02:55 PM · #31 |
| At the very least, GW Bush is a bad businessman whose business ventures have failed more than once in the past and had to be bailed out more than once by BCCI money. Talk about someone who hasn't earned his due, GW has gotten special treatment with his businesses because he was at the time the president's son and those who gave him money to bail out his failing businesses (Arbusto and Harken Energy) did so to curry favor with the president. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 07:17:47 PM · #32 |
A word of caution, Olyuzi. People who use threatening speech about a sitting President and/or his family, especially in a public forum, often find themselves doing a lot of explaining to FBI agents in uncomfortable surroundings.
While I disagree with most of your positions and get REALLY bored at your repetition of the same old sing-song time after time after time - still, I wouldn't want to see you disappear for several days under those kinds of circumstances.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 07:21:46 PM · #33 |
Let's not forget that James Baker, Bush family friend, advisor and former secretary of state under George I, is defending the Saudi Royal family against the families of the 9/11 families. Just the symbolism of that alone tells you where the Bushites true loyalties are, and they do not appear to be with the American public. They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. The Saudi Royals have been known to fund terrorism and James Baker is defending them???!!! That's OUTRAGEOUS!
Yet the Bush administration have the chutzpah (Jewish word for nerve) to use the 9/11 attacks as their rallying cry for how much they've done to stop terrorism. I don't see what they've done and they've just made us more vulnerable.
The Bush campaigns have also taken funding from someone who has had business dealings with US/UN acknowledged terrorist Charles Taylor, and I"m sure there are plenty of others. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 07:23:30 PM · #34 |
KERRY: BUSH FAILED TO TELL TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ
"True leadership is about looking people in the eye and telling the truth, even when it's hard to hear," Kerry told members of the National Guard Association.
Kerry blasted Bush for failing "the fundamental test of leadership. He failed to tell you the truth."
"You deserve better. The commander in chief must level with the troops and the nation," he added. "And as president, I will always be straight with you -- on the good days, and the bad days."
[...]
"Two days ago, the President stood right where I'm standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq," Kerry said.
AP Story
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 07:28:11 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by RonB:
A word of caution, Olyuzi. People who use threatening speech about a sitting President and/or his family, especially in a public forum, often find themselves doing a lot of explaining to FBI agents in uncomfortable surroundings.
While I disagree with most of your positions and get REALLY bored at your repetition of the same old sing-song time after time after time - still, I wouldn't want to see you disappear for several days under those kinds of circumstances. |
***Thanks for your concerns, Ron. They are appreciated.
All of what I have just posted is easily found on the internet. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 07:43:08 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
KERRY: BUSH FAILED TO TELL TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ
"True leadership is about looking people in the eye and telling the truth, even when it's hard to hear," Kerry told members of the National Guard Association.
Kerry blasted Bush for failing "the fundamental test of leadership. He failed to tell you the truth."
"You deserve better. The commander in chief must level with the troops and the nation," he added. "And as president, I will always be straight with you -- on the good days, and the bad days."
[...]
"Two days ago, the President stood right where I'm standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq," Kerry said.
AP Story |
OH, that is really RICH.
Kerry blasted Bush for failing "the fundamental test of leadership. He failed to tell you the truth.".
By that measure KERRY FAILS HIS OWN TEST. He "failed to tell the truth" about being in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968; he "failed to tell the truth" about the atrocities he witnessed in Vietnam in his testimony before congress in 1971; he "failed to tell the truth" in obtaining his first purple heart; he "failed to tell the truth" about the incident in which he got his bronze star; he "failed to tell the truth" when he said he threw his medals over the fence; he "failed to tell the truth" when he said that he had released "all" of his military records; etc. etc. etc.
Message edited by author 2004-09-16 19:53:58. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 08:01:49 PM · #37 |
That's weak Ron, I actually expect better from you. That facile fallback attack is expected from the likes of many on this board, but from you, well... I expected something with a little more thought put into it. Sad.
.......................................
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bdobe:
KERRY: BUSH FAILED TO TELL TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ
"True leadership is about looking people in the eye and telling the truth, even when it's hard to hear," Kerry told members of the National Guard Association.
Kerry blasted Bush for failing "the fundamental test of leadership. He failed to tell you the truth."
"You deserve better. The commander in chief must level with the troops and the nation," he added. "And as president, I will always be straight with you -- on the good days, and the bad days."
[...]
"Two days ago, the President stood right where I'm standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq," Kerry said.
AP Story |
OH, that is really RICH.
Kerry blasted Bush for failing "the fundamental test of leadership. He failed to tell you the truth.".
By that measure KERRY FAILS HIS OWN TEST. He "failed to tell the truth" about being in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968; he "failed to tell the truth" about the atrocities he witnessed in Vietnam in his testimony before congress in 1971; he "failed to tell the truth" in obtaining his first purple heart; he "failed to tell the truth" about the incident in which he got his bronze star; he "failed to tell the truth" when he said he threw his medals over the fence; he "failed to tell the truth" when he said that he had released "all" of his military records; etc. etc. etc. |
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 08:56:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Truthfully, I think he was stumped at some of the words. Probably the first time in a long time that he even opened a book. Drip...drip...drip. |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
GW Bush, and his family, Neil, Jeb and Daddy have been doing business with some of the worst and most notorious criminals in the history of the world... (drip...drip...drip). |
Here we are again: You contend he's both the biggest dunce in the world, then try to make him out to be the most devious, ingenious, sinister monster in the history of the world. Kerry-itis must be spreading at epidemic levels through the liberal world: flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop....
Its a good thing you guys don't hate Bush, I'm frightened what lengths you'd go to then. (Not that you could really go much further.)
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 09:04:11 PM · #39 |
I hate to put any of these threads back up at the top, and I'm not even sure this is the one where it was discussed (have ya'll noticed that hte same topics come up time and time again in the different threads, so it probably doesn't really matter which thread I post it in, that topic will come up eventually . . .)
Concerning the president reading to the children on 9/11 --
As an educator, guess what I was doing during the attacks -- teaching. When I heard about the attacks, I kept teaching. Why? I didnt' want to alarm my students any more than I had to. And, guess what, they were high schoolers.
Now, if you can back up enough, and put aside your hatred of GW and all he represents, and perhaps pretend it was Clinton or Kerry, ask yourself. What was better for the children? To jump up and run out alarmed, and cause them to feel a)jilted and b)scared out of their wits or to finish the task at hand and allow the children to find out about it in a more controlled way?
For real guys, he was reading to little guys. He wasn't addressing the Senate, he wasn't taking a dump in the White House john, he was with little guys. Whether he be D or R, and whether he be a candidate or not, I appreciate that the man kept his wits and didn't scare the tykes half out of their skin.
Also, had he jumped up immediately, and left bewildered children in his wake, the opposition would just be saying that he shirked his public duty and ignored the youngest population.
The way I see it, he was in a lose/lose situation.
edit -- I think this actual topic was in another thread, so I apologize for interjecting, but it was the thread closest to the top. :-)
Message edited by author 2004-09-16 21:15:23.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 09:07:51 PM · #40 |
This entire article is full if the same unsubstantiated crap I debunked in the Fahrenheit 911 thread. Why must we beat a dead horse? Can't someone come up with something new or at least something based on real facts? |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 09:19:11 PM · #41 |
Karmat,
When he got the news he could have said:
"Excuse me class, the President has some important business to tend to. Well have to finish up this book another time. Thank you all, you’re a wonderful class."
Then walk out the door and do his job.
Also,
Originally posted by karmat:
For real guys, he was reading to little guys. He wasn't addressing the Senate, he wasn't taking a dump in the White House john, he was with little guys. Whether he be D or R, and whether he be a candidate or not, I appreciate that the man kept his wits and didn't scare the tykes half out of their skin. |
If your saying the President should think of the feelings of 1 class of children (which I showed above could still be done above AND do his job) before attending to his main job of "Commander and Chief", I think you don’t understand the urgency related to the 1st time America was attacked on its own soil since 1944.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 09:43:36 PM · #42 |
The cognitive dissonance among Mr. Bush's supporters is incredible. Over and over again, the only explanation they seem to be able to muster as to why reasonable people disagree with his administration is that such folks must hate Mr. Bush. Hmmm... clearly Mr. Bush's supporters are not paying attention, nor carefully reading many of the posts made in this board.
But hey, whatever explains one's world view, right?
I'll say it again, I'm an average male that happened to serve in the Marines, I put myself through college after the Corps, I follow politics extremely closely and, as I have carefully documented, I (and countless folks around our country) have substantive and legitimate reasons to want to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the self-admitted "miscalculations" that got us into Iraq (and which will keep our armed forces there for years to come -- which is exactly what Osama Bin Ladin wanted, a permanent target).
Honestly folks, if you guys don't know what's going-on in Iraq you've better start paying attention.
"At best, the experts said, Iraq will have a tenuous stability. A middle-ground estimate envisions increased extremism and fragmentation that impede efforts to build a central government and adversely affect efforts to democratize the country." [ LINK ]
Mr. Bush chose to go into Iraq when he didn't have to. To me, this is the biggest issue of this campaign, and the single gravest breach of trust that any Commander-in-Chief (or leader of any type) can make.
Now, I have documented these legitimate grievances, and (if any of you have read them and are intellectually honest) you will conclude that, as a citizen of this nation, I have a right to hold this administration accountable... and I will make sure that I, and everyone I come in physical contact with, is aware of these grievances, and that they vote their conscious come November 2nd. (As an aside, Mr. Bush's supporters should be extremely honest, and ask themselves one simple question, "If Clinton had made the same miscalculations and decisions that Bush has made, would I be supporting Clinton at this point?)
Now, if you guys feel more comfortable believing that it's just personal and that these "left-wing loonies" are just a bunch of Bush Bashers, well, you keeping on deluding yourselves with that simple-minded explanation of the world.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 10:58:44 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
...the President of the U.S. is on-the-job 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. It doesn't matter WHERE he is. |
Yes, one expects the president of the U.S. to be at the ready 24/7. And that's why this president, Mr. Bush, is such a disappointment and unlike any president we've had before. At the precise time when Mr. Bush was supposed to have been "strong," "resolute," and a man of "action," he sat in a kid's chair and read "My Pet Goat":
Note that as he sat there, in the kid's chair reading "My Pet Goat," Mr. Bush was told that a SECOND plane had hit the World Trade Center Towers. So, Mr. Bush knew that America was under attack when he went into the classroom, and yet our self-described war president chose to keep a photo-op, in stead of doing his job.
You can watch the all too painful video clip of Mr. Bush reading "My Pet Goat" here, courtesy of the MemoryHole.org. |
I can't believe everyone makes this such a huge issue. Who gives a crap if the president sat in a room full of children for 10 minutes? While the president was "just sitting there", there were literally thousands of people working the situation. He had an entire staff of people as well as several federal and local agencies working on the problem before he even found out about it. It's not like they were sitting idly by waiting for the President to tell them what to do. What could he have done in those 10 minutes that would have made the final outcome any different?
Message edited by author 2004-09-16 23:03:58. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 11:24:21 PM · #44 |
Because it's the seriousness of the charge not the truth that matters to them.
The same people are the fucking morons on CNN voting that they trust ABC more than Bush on his own history, yet ABC is the only one PROVEN to be scum bag liers.
I hope when they catch the scum involved and they go to jail for a long time. This is a serious crime, yet another CNN poll shows that most CNN viewers don't want to probe any further into the issue... Gee I wonder why?
I'm wandering, but dammit I'm kinda pissed off...
Message edited by author 2004-09-16 23:25:24. |
|
|
|
09/17/2004 01:54:57 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Hmmm... clearly Mr. Bush's supporters are not paying attention, nor carefully reading many of the posts made in this board.
But hey, whatever explains one's world view, right?
|
I think that you, just as many others on this board who post anti-Bush content, are equally inattentive. I have disagreements with some of Bush's policies, and agree with many others. Why do you have a problem with the fact that others can hold a position different from yours?
Originally posted by bdobe:
I (and countless folks around our country) have substantive and legitimate reasons to want to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the self-admitted "miscalculations" that got us into Iraq (and which will keep our armed forces there for years to come -- which is exactly what Osama Bin Ladin wanted, a permanent target).
|
And I and countless other folks around this country have substantive and legitimate reasons to support Bush over Kerry. Why is that not acceptable to you?
Originally posted by bdobe:
Honestly folks, if you guys don't know what's going-on in Iraq you've better start paying attention.
Mr. Bush chose to go into Iraq when he didn't have to. To me, this is the biggest issue of this campaign, and the single gravest breach of trust that any Commander-in-Chief (or leader of any type) can make.
Now, I have documented these legitimate grievances, and (if any of you have read them and are intellectually honest) you will conclude that, as a citizen of this nation, I have a right to hold this administration accountable... and I will make sure that I, and everyone I come in physical contact with, is aware of these grievances, and that they vote their conscious come November 2nd. (As an aside, Mr. Bush's supporters should be extremely honest, and ask themselves one simple question, "If Clinton had made the same miscalculations and decisions that Bush has made, would I be supporting Clinton at this point?)
Now, if you guys feel more comfortable believing that it's just personal and that these "left-wing loonies" are just a bunch of Bush Bashers, well, you keeping on deluding yourselves with that simple-minded explanation of the world. |
Believe it or not, I do know much of what is going on in Iraq. And yet, in the overall scheme of things, Bush seems to be, to me, the more capable of the two candidates. This is based on my own knowledge and analysis of the facts and issues, my personal experiences, my life, my feeling and my values. Things that you cannot change. Why do you find that not worthy of your respect? By the way, I have not heard you voice your displeasure with Kerry, who has also admitted to such things as war crimes and who has stated that given current knowledge, he still would have voted for providing the authority for proceeding into Iraq, the very issue which you feel so strongly about. When people are critical of only one candidate and not the other, it seriously undermines their credibility.
The reason many believe that many of the posters are nothing more than "Bush Bashers" is that many of the liberal posters here do nothing but that, posting nothing but speculation, innuendo and unsubstatiated information. Although I find your posts are generally thoughtful and more factual, I do have a problem with the simple fact that you cannot accept that a view contrary to yours can be just as reasonable.
To say it in more simple terms, I respect your opinion, and don't mind if you want to share it. Your opinion is based on your own personal beliefs, views and feelings, just as is mine. I would expect you all to respect mine equally. But the impression I am left with here is that the more liberal posters just want to ram their opinions down everyone else's throat. Please stop.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2004 03:07:03 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by SoCal69:
I think that you, just as many others on this board who post anti-Bush content, are equally inattentive. I have disagreements with some of Bush's policies, and agree with many others. Why do you have a problem with the fact that others can hold a position different from yours? |
SoCal, you should be more mindful in your characterization of what I've posted. While you may object to their content and my opinions, to simply describe what I've posted as anti-Bush is extremely simplistic. Mind you that, as you've stated, "I find your posts are generally thoughtful and more factual," I work very hard to stick to facts that I can backup with reputable sources, and I also try to stick to legitimate lines of argument. (Of course, now and then, if someone brings up sh*t, I'll be more than happy to reciprocate -- note that I started posting, and started my own thread, after EddyG started the SBVT thread.) Also, note that while many simply resort to personal attacks (i.e., I've recently been likened to a dog), I've not responded with similar attacks; because I would rather let the weight of what I present speak for it self.
Originally posted by SoCal69:
And I and countless other folks around this country have substantive and legitimate reasons to support Bush over Kerry. Why is that not acceptable to you? |
Given your earlier comment about my posts, I take it you've read more than just a couple of them; therefore, I'm sure you've noticed that I've repeatedly said that I did not hope to change minds. Moreover, on more than one occasion I've added that I accept that I cannot change anyone's mind about the candidates nor anything else, specially since that's not what I aim to do. Frankly, as I've stated before, it is inconsequential to me whether anyone's mind is changed. The only thing I aim to do is to present information, and to confront those that continually ridicule those that disapprove of the current administration as "left wing loonies," or even worst, as "terrorists sympathizers" (as some on this board have done on more than one occasion).
But to answer your question directly, absolutely, as an American citizen, it is your right to support the candidate of your choice, for whatever reason you want. I just wish that when I speak in support of my candidate, that I not be labeled a "communists," a "left wing looney," a "terrorist sympathizer," and all the other demeaning insults that have been repeatedly hurdled on this board -- not to mention in the real world.
Originally posted by SoCal69:
Believe it or not, I do know much of what is going on in Iraq. And yet, in the overall scheme of things, Bush seems to be, to me, the more capable of the two candidates. This is based on my own knowledge and analysis of the facts and issues, my personal experiences, my life, my feeling and my values. Things that you cannot change. Why do you find that not worthy of your respect? By the way, I have not heard you voice your displeasure with Kerry, who has also admitted to such things as war crimes and who has stated that given current knowledge, he still would have voted for providing the authority for proceeding into Iraq, the very issue which you feel so strongly about. When people are critical of only one candidate and not the other, it seriously undermines their credibility. |
What you've described as your "feelings and values" are the very reasons why I KNOW that minds in the "opposing" camp cannot be changed. Let me say it again, as I've done in previous posts, I understand that "hearts and minds" are largely made up about the candidates, and that this is the reason why we'll not see eye-to-eye on many of the issues (much less the candidates). Just as your life's experiences and your values have steered you towards Mr. Bush, my values and experiences have steered me towards Mr. Kerry. Moreover, I accept both of our choices as valid and legitimate.
As for your questions regarding Mr. Kerry, that's something I've been giving a lot of thought, and it's something that I may post on in this board. However, because I do work hard to search out facts and to stick to legitimate lines of argument, I want to make sure I have a grasp of what I'll write before shooting a quick response here.
Nonetheless, from all that I've seen so far, I must strongly disagree with you as to which candidate would do a better job of handling Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan), specially given conditions on the ground right now. I strongly belive that Mr. Kerry would do a far better job of administering conditions on the ground, not to mention relationships in the diplomatic halls around the world.
Originally posted by SoCal69:
The reason many believe that many of the posters are nothing more than "Bush Bashers" is that many of the liberal posters here do nothing but that, posting nothing but speculation, innuendo and unsubstatiated information. Although I find your posts are generally thoughtful and more factual, I do have a problem with the simple fact that you cannot accept that a view contrary to yours can be just as reasonable.
To say it in more simple terms, I respect your opinion, and don't mind if you want to share it. Your opinion is based on your own personal beliefs, views and feelings, just as is mine. I would expect you all to respect mine equally. But the impression I am left with here is that the more liberal posters just want to ram their opinions down everyone else's throat. Please stop. |
As I've written and as I hope you'll conclude, we come at it from a well reasoned and balanced mind set, we just happen to arrive at very different conclusions. I can actually envision us sitting at a bar talking about politics, getting heated and still walking away with mutual respect. Nonetheless, I hope I've conveyed that just as you feel besieged by the so-called "Bush Bashers," I (and many others) feel equally resentful and besieged by those that question our "patriostism" for not supporting Mr. Bush.
Finally, as to your last plea, I'm afraid that the back-and-forth will not stop -- we'll just have to live with it. Moreover, if Mr. Kerry wins the election, and if both the House and Senate remain in the hands of the Republican party, I can guarantee that things will just get more heated.
Sincerely,
Me
|
|
|
|
09/17/2004 04:04:38 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by SoCal69:
I think that you, just as many others on this board who post anti-Bush content, are equally inattentive. I have disagreements with some of Bush's policies, and agree with many others. Why do you have a problem with the fact that others can hold a position different from yours? |
SoCal, you should be more mindful in your characterization of what I've posted. While you may object to their content and my opinions, to simply describe what I've posted as anti-Bush is extremely simplistic. Mind you that, as you've stated, "I find your posts are generally thoughtful and more factual," I work very hard to stick to facts that I can backup with reputable sources, and I also try to stick to legitimate lines of argument. (Of course, now and then, if someone brings up sh*t, I'll be more than happy to reciprocate -- note that I started posting, and started my own thread, after EddyG started the SBVT thread.) Also, note that while many simply resort to personal attacks (i.e., I've recently been likened to a dog), I've not responded with similar attacks; because I would rather let the weight of what I present speak for it self.
|
But that is my point exactly... Rather than discuss the issues, you have done nothing but present negative information about Bush. Although I do respect the fact that you may have an opinion about him, what I have not seen from you or any of the other more, shall we say "vocal" liberal posters is a discussion of issues or comparison of the positions of the candidates. In fact, all I have seen is anti-Bush posts, as that is all they have been. As I have always said, I don't believe either candidate has all the answers, but I am the first person to admit that BOTH have strengths and weaknesses. The predominance of the posts you have posted rarely mention Kerry, and then only to state that you support him (without any supporting information I might add). I should mention also that I see this from the more conservative posters as well, but the majority comes from the more liberal posters.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by SoCal69:
And I and countless other folks around this country have substantive and legitimate reasons to support Bush over Kerry. Why is that not acceptable to you? |
Given your earlier comment about my posts, I take it you've read more than just a couple of them; therefore, I'm sure you've noticed that I've repeatedly said that I did not hope to change minds. Moreover, on more than one occasion I've added that I accept that I cannot change anyone's mind about the candidates nor anything else, specially since that's not what I aim to do. Frankly, as I've stated before, it is inconsequential to me whether anyone's mind is changed. The only thing I aim to do is to present information, and to confront those that continually ridicule those that disapprove of the current administration as "left wing loonies," or even worst, as "terrorists sympathizers" (as some on this board have done on more than one occasion).
But to answer your question directly, absolutely, as an American citizen, it is your right to support the candidate of your choice, for whatever reason you want. I just wish that when I speak in support of my candidate, that I not be labeled a "communists," a "left wing looney," a "terrorist sympathizer," and all the other demeaning insults that have been repeatedly hurdled on this board -- not to mention in the real world. |
First of all, I never have labeled anyone posting in these threads, least of all you. However, you state that you do not wish to change anyone's mind, but are simply "presenting information." Well, to be honest, it sure does not look that way. You repeat information in post after post, adress the same issues repeatedly, some of which focuses on events of 30+ years ago rather than present day issues. You constantly take issue with the war in Iraq, yet offer no insight on what alternatives or course of action John Kerry has provided. You have not once mentioned his indecisiveness, his ties to big business or his "vision" for this country. I for one am still waiting to hear what he has to say. As I say, all I see in these threads is the repeated anti-Bush statements. I am still waiting to see the "pro-Kerry" posts. For example, you posted the graph regarding how many days Bush was "off the job." I did not see you make any mention of Kerry's time off the job, despite the fact that it has been significant. So you see, when you critisize one candidate without acknowledging similar issues for the other, your position lacks credibility. Moreover, though no one seems to want to admit it, both of these candidates are fairly similar in the majority of their positions. It is the few areas in which they disagree which guides me to one over the other. Yet no one here has really addressed such issues and has focused on the National Guard and Swift Boat issues, which in my mind are irrelevant to the issues of the current time.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by SoCal69:
Believe it or not, I do know much of what is going on in Iraq. And yet, in the overall scheme of things, Bush seems to be, to me, the more capable of the two candidates. This is based on my own knowledge and analysis of the facts and issues, my personal experiences, my life, my feeling and my values. Things that you cannot change. Why do you find that not worthy of your respect? By the way, I have not heard you voice your displeasure with Kerry, who has also admitted to such things as war crimes and who has stated that given current knowledge, he still would have voted for providing the authority for proceeding into Iraq, the very issue which you feel so strongly about. When people are critical of only one candidate and not the other, it seriously undermines their credibility. |
What you've described as your "feelings and values" are the very reasons why I KNOW that minds in the "opposing" camp cannot be changed. Let me say it again, as I've done in previous posts, I understand that "hearts and minds" are largely made up about the candidates, and that this is the reason why we'll not see eye-to-eye on many of the issues (much less the candidates). Just as your life's experiences and your values have steered you towards Mr. Bush, my values and experiences have steered me towards Mr. Kerry. Moreover, I accept both of our choices as valid and legitimate.
As for your questions regarding Mr. Kerry, that's something I've been giving a lot of thought, and it's something that I may post on in this board. However, because I do work hard to search out facts and to stick to legitimate lines of argument, I want to make sure I have a grasp of what I'll write before shooting a quick response here.
Nonetheless, from all that I've seen so far, I must strongly disagree with you as to which candidate would do a better job of handling Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan), specially given conditions on the ground right now. I strongly belive that Mr. Kerry would do a far better job of administering conditions on the ground, not to mention relationships in the diplomatic halls around the world. |
Well, your hesitance in discussing Kerry is exremely striking. It indicates to me that your candidate preference is based more on the dislike of one than the support for the other. Tell me, why do you strongly believe Kerry would do a better job of administering military and diplomatic circumstances? Has he presented a plan which sets forth his proposed actions? Why do you think Kerry will do a better job with the economy? Has he set forth any kind of economic plan (besides the possibility of repealing tax cuts and increasing taxes)? Along those lines, how is it that you feel Bush has failed? I am sure you do keep in mind several factors when you reach this conclusion, such as the fact that the outcomes of various economic policies trail the enactment of those policies by any number of years, that while the president may set the tone for his administration, Congress is the legislative branch of our nation. May I also remind you that Kerry was part of that branch for sometwo decades, so he must also share in that failure along with other republican and democratic congressmen/women. So you see, in the end, your statements that you are simply "presenting information" seems disingenous.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by SoCal69:
The reason many believe that many of the posters are nothing more than "Bush Bashers" is that many of the liberal posters here do nothing but that, posting nothing but speculation, innuendo and unsubstatiated information. Although I find your posts are generally thoughtful and more factual, I do have a problem with the simple fact that you cannot accept that a view contrary to yours can be just as reasonable.
To say it in more simple terms, I respect your opinion, and don't mind if you want to share it. Your opinion is based on your own personal beliefs, views and feelings, just as is mine. I would expect you all to respect mine equally. But the impression I am left with here is that the more liberal posters just want to ram their opinions down everyone else's throat. Please stop. |
As I've written and as I hope you'll conclude, we come at it from a well reasoned and balanced mind set, we just happen to arrive at very different conclusions. I can actually envision us sitting at a bar talking about politics, getting heated and still walking away with mutual respect. Nonetheless, I hope I've conveyed that just as you feel besieged by the so-called "Bush Bashers," I (and many others) feel equally resentful and besieged by those that question our "patriostism" for not supporting Mr. Bush. |
I do agree with you. We do reach our conclusions based on different mindsets, but so far, you have done nothing to show me that it is well reasoned or balanced. I make this statement not because I think you are wrong, but because you have not shown reason or balance. What you have shown is one-sided criticism which was not applied equally to all candidates. I am not saying your decision is not legitimate, nor do I question your patriotism. I certainly believe you are entitled to your opinion, to be reached in any way you see fit. However, when you openly post in a way which is unbalanced and one-sided against a candidate (as opposed to being supportive of your candidate) you will have people using such labels. The same is especially true for those who post using hateful and vulgar language, who post speculative and unsubstantiated information as factual, and who seem to simply ignore the very freedoms they are so concerned about when applied to a position they disagree with.
These irrational posts, rants and accusations are the marks of the desperate. As they see Kerry slipping in the polls, you will see more and more (as if there hasn't been enough) Bush-bashing posts. Kerry will continue to be ignored in favor of posting hatred about Bush. In the end, I think Kerry will not succeed for one reason: His support base comes predominantly from those who hate Bush, while Bush's support base comes predominantly from those who support Bush, and that will make the difference in this election.
By the way, Should Kerry win the day, I would expect (though I doubt it) to see you holding the Kerry administration equally accountable for any "failures" or "miscalculations" rather than simply dismissing them as the conspiratorial tactics of a republican controlled Congress.
Edit: Typos
Message edited by author 2004-09-17 04:08:24.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2004 10:20:48 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
the president.... looks like a man with something serious on his mind, waiting for the appropriate point at which to graciously break away.
You may argue it should have been sooner than later, but its such a mind-boglingly trivial point. Move on. |
Surely you jest. The president didn't have enough brain power to graciously break away from a roomful of kids in tenseconds flat, when our country was under terrorist attack, and you feel compelled to defend that?
BTW, after he left the classroom, he hung out at the school for another 15 to 20 minutes.
So, it seems he wasn't really thinking about "breaking away" after al. And itappears he was also being kept deliberately out of the loop, to boot. Richard Clarke was already calling the shots in the situation room by then.
Message edited by author 2004-09-17 16:44:29. |
|
|
|
09/17/2004 10:27:41 AM · #49 |
originally posted by SoCal69:
"I am still waiting to see the "pro-Kerry" posts."
About a week or so ago I posted about ten direct links to Kerry's website on a panoply of subjects where the campaign has layed out the Kerry/Edwards explicit issue positions/plans in detail.
It was in, I think, a response to louddog.
If you are interested i could find them for you?
It is a very impressive catalog, especially in comparison to Bush. |
|
|
|
09/17/2004 10:45:15 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
This entire article is full if the same unsubstantiated crap I debunked in the Fahrenheit 911 thread. Why must we beat a dead horse? Can't someone come up with something new or at least something based on real facts? |
Well, what is brand new is that the charges that Bush failed to protect the country from the 9/11 attackers, by quashing FBI and CIA investigations into al queda funding by Saudi government officials, including relatives of his own frequent dinner guests and business partners (!) are
1) never been debunked by you or anybody else
2) now being published in a book by Senator Bob Graham, who Chaired the Senate Intelligence Committe. That's pretty darned good credentials.
3) are based from information that the Bush White House itself had censored from the Senate Intelligence report - the now infamous 27 missing pages!
Do you remember the testimony of the frustrated FBI agents who wanted to arrest the al queda guys in flight training? They were on the cover of Newsweek.
They said it was as if their superiors worked for al queda, not the U.S.', because they could not understand why on earth they were not being allowed to do their jobs. :(
Now we know why - IT WAS BUSH. Preventing investigations into the Saudi connections. And then doing all he could to COVER IT UP.
Do you still think he should be held blameless?
Do you still feel that ANYBODY would not be a better choice at the helm?
Message edited by author 2004-09-17 16:48:16. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 07:22:53 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 07:22:53 PM EDT.
|
