DC Tom Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Yeah, when asked to provide a link to the source I'd have to give up my own email. From what I've heard come out of Kerry so far, on these particular issues, I'm pretty convinced your cats know more about this stuff than Kerry does. What's sad, is I really at this point believe that he does know more about it, and is deliberately twisting and lieing just to get the seat. He can't produce what he's advertising, and we will end up in serious stevestojan for it. How do I know he's lieing fellow boarders? "BECAUSE I HELP WRITE THE FRIGGEN PLANS AND OPERATIONS ORDERS FOR THE STUFF HE SAYS DOESN'T EXIST!" But, I'm sure his campaign website is much more accurate and informative. I don't think anyone can come up with a more clear cut example of what that guy is all about than I just did, and I only say that to make a point. I'm equally certain that the Kerryites here will completely skip over this and go back to 4 points, and consider me an uninformed lunatic. 53197[/snapback] Ditto. I think he's lying too. How do I know? Because I'm being asked to work on projects he says don't exist. Of course, I must be lying, since CNN's not reporting it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Ditto. I think he's lying too. How do I know? Because I'm being asked to work on projects he says don't exist. Of course, I must be lying, since CNN's not reporting it... 53279[/snapback] I just had one of those lightbulb moments. If, somehow Kerry gets elected, all the Bush administration stuff that's sort of hidden away becomes Kerry's stuff? He takes credit for it and when the Republican's call him on it it gets turned into a sour grapes thing in the media and gets forgotten about? Oh, and I'm certain that he'd get his summit too. Where France, Germany and Russia smile, shake hands and take him to the cleaners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Ditto. I think he's lying too. How do I know? Because I'm being asked to work on projects he says don't exist. Of course, I must be lying, since CNN's not reporting it... 53279[/snapback] Where is the quote from Kerry, directly, where he says something specifically doesn't exist that does exist? I am not accusing you whatsoever, I would just like to see what Kerry actually said that you know for a fact isn't true. (And NOT that Kerry isn't capable of lying or misleading, he does it all the time, as do all of them) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Where is the quote from Kerry, directly, where he says something specifically doesn't exist that does exist? I am not accusing you whatsoever, I would just like to see what Kerry actually said that you know for a fact isn't true. (And NOT that Kerry isn't capable of lying or misleading, he does it all the time, as do all of them) 53292[/snapback] The war on terror requires good intelligence, yet many of the problems with information-sharing and databases that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_s...eland_plan.html Over two years after 9/11, intelligence sharing is still not a priority http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/release...2004_0417a.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_s...eland_plan.htmlhttp://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/release...2004_0417a.html 53300[/snapback] Those are so broad and are basically opinions not flat out lies and facts. I know nothing compared to you guys and can honestly say that many of the problems have not been addressed even if the majority of the problems or even the vast majority of the problems HAVE been addressed. Furthermore, intelligence sharing, you well know, comes in many forms. He could be talking about getting a lot of the countries we have shunned or pissed off to be more willing to share intelligence (not necessarily the inner-intelligence sharing amongst American agencies). Neither of those two statements come across as flat lies, or even mistruths, and may not even be deceptive at all. And that quote from Kerry came from six months ago. Things have changed aparently. I am not saying the guy doesn't lie or misstate or mislead, those, to me, don't seem to be lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Those are so broad and are basically opinions not flat out lies and facts. I know nothing compared to you guys and can honestly say that many of the problems have not been addressed even if the majority of the problems or even the vast majority of the problems HAVE been addressed. Furthermore, intelligence sharing, you well know, comes in many forms. He could be talking about getting a lot of the countries we have shunned or pissed off to be more willing to share intelligence (not necessarily the inner-intelligence sharing amongst American agencies). Neither of those two statements come across as flat lies, or even mistruths, and may not even be deceptive at all. And that quote from Kerry came from six months ago. Things have changed aparently. I am not saying the guy doesn't lie or misstate or mislead, those, to me, don't seem to be lies. 53317[/snapback] Somewhere amongst the other threads I have some comments about non-proliferation and counter-proliferation. Also GWOT. And I really don't want to cop out on you, but it's a "If I told ya I'd have to kill ya" type of thing, provided I wasn't sitting in jail first. Kerry made a broad statement to the effect that this administration is doing little to nothing as far as the proliferation of WMD goes, and that it is a low priority. Do a Google on the proliferation security initiative. The comments made about securing Russian nuclear material are baseless. Within the organization I work for is a branch that is the executive agent for these matters. We have a lot of people on the ground within the former soviet union, helping the Russians in these matters. There is no such thing as unguarded, unsecured weapons grade nuclear material, but that's what was said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Those are so broad and are basically opinions not flat out lies and facts. I know nothing compared to you guys and can honestly say that many of the problems have not been addressed even if the majority of the problems or even the vast majority of the problems HAVE been addressed. Furthermore, intelligence sharing, you well know, comes in many forms. He could be talking about getting a lot of the countries we have shunned or pissed off to be more willing to share intelligence (not necessarily the inner-intelligence sharing amongst American agencies). Neither of those two statements come across as flat lies, or even mistruths, and may not even be deceptive at all. And that quote from Kerry came from six months ago. Things have changed aparently. I am not saying the guy doesn't lie or misstate or mislead, those, to me, don't seem to be lies. 53317[/snapback] The big problem in explaining it is that I'm pretty much hamstrung by comparing Kerry's words to first-person, direct knowledge that I can't possibly convince you I have. When Kerry says "many of the problems with information-sharing and databases that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed" (which, by the way, was a reference to domestic and not international policy...in searching, I stuck to things I knew first hand, not second-hand or merely suspected. My comments on international intelligence sharing would merely be conjecture), all I can say is that I have factual first-hand knowledge that contradicts that statement. Of course, that allows many other conjectures: Kerry doesn't know, Kerry knows but is lying, Kerry knows but interprets it differently - which is what you seem to be implying, that it's an opinion. I read that statement of his, and I see something that's very unambiguous: he states straight out that the issues aren't being addressed, and aren't being prioritized. I don't see a hell of a lot of room for interpretative opinion between a direct statement like that, and my factual knowledge that it is being addressed, and is a priority. That can only lead me to believe that he's either lying, or uninformed...annd I have a hard time believing that Kerry hasn't been briefed - and even knows less than I do - on the initiatives that have been and are being pursued in such an important arena... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Somewhere amongst the other threads I have some comments about non-proliferation and counter-proliferation. Also GWOT. And I really don't want to cop out on you, but it's a "If I told ya I'd have to kill ya" type of thing, provided I wasn't sitting in jail first. Kerry made a broad statement to the effect that this administration is doing little to nothing as far as the proliferation of WMD goes, and that it is a low priority. Do a Google on the proliferation security initiative. The comments made about securing Russian nuclear material are baseless. Within the organization I work for is a branch that is the executive agent for these matters. We have a lot of people on the ground within the former soviet union, helping the Russians in these matters. There is no such thing as unguarded, unsecured weapons grade nuclear material, but that's what was said. 53335[/snapback] But that's just politics as usual. Kerry did NOT say (in the debate) there were unguarded weapons grade nuclear material, all he said was there were "some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia." Read the transcript. Bush then said his adminstration had spent 35 million on securing the material but left out that the majority of that money was in the US, not Russia. Again, I am not saying Kerry is not a weasal, because he is. But he doesn't outwardly lie or mislead any more than anyone else on either side. And frankly, I just don't see why you guys think he's just going to ignore all this important stuff that you guys know is a high priority. There is little in his rhetoric or past or personality or experience that presumes as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 The big problem in explaining it is that I'm pretty much hamstrung by comparing Kerry's words to first-person, direct knowledge that I can't possibly convince you I have. When Kerry says "many of the problems with information-sharing and databases that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed" (which, by the way, was a reference to domestic and not international policy...in searching, I stuck to things I knew first hand, not second-hand or merely suspected. My comments on international intelligence sharing would merely be conjecture), all I can say is that I have factual first-hand knowledge that contradicts that statement. Of course, that allows many other conjectures: Kerry doesn't know, Kerry knows but is lying, Kerry knows but interprets it differently - which is what you seem to be implying, that it's an opinion. I read that statement of his, and I see something that's very unambiguous: he states straight out that the issues aren't being addressed, and aren't being prioritized. I don't see a hell of a lot of room for interpretative opinion between a direct statement like that, and my factual knowledge that it is being addressed, and is a priority. That can only lead me to believe that he's either lying, or uninformed...annd I have a hard time believing that Kerry hasn't been briefed - and even knows less than I do - on the initiatives that have been and are being pursued in such an important arena... 53349[/snapback] No disrespect but... here comes the disrespect... I completely disagree with your interpretation of his motives. And it is only your opinion as this is only my opinion. When you say it can only mean he's either lying or stupid, why I read is he's factual and he's smart and he's artful. He knew exactly what he was saying, and he wasnt speaking to you, he was speaking to the general morons. He saying that amongst the 100s of issues that need to be addressed, some of them are not being addressed. That has to be true. Some arent being prioritized in the order that he thinks they should be prioritized. That HAS to be true by definition, otherwise he would have the same priority list as the Bush Administration. He was, artfully sure, looking for a way to get the public to think he had the best priority list and what Bush was doing was not. Hell---ooo? That's what all politicians do with everything they say every single day. Say (often misleading) things that are factually true to create an image. There are dozens if not hundreds of ways that terrorists may slip into the country illegally. Not all of them are being addressed. I have had a couple incidents at the Canadian border recently with my famiy that were amazing. And I disagree that he was automatically speaking only of domestic intelligence sharing, he was talking about domestic problems of terrorists gaining entry. Much of the intelligence of these terrorists would again by definition be international intelligence and not domestic inner-agency intelligence sharing. You may call it shrewd, you may call it deceitful, you may call it artful, or machiavellian or any number of words but you're saying he's lying when he's not lying and you're saying he's either stupid or uninformed and I doubt you really believe that. He may be a hideous candidate and person but he is not stupid or uninformed. George, on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Your right on a lot of it Kelly. It's hard to explain things that can't be explained. My problem goes to the core issues of wrong war-right war. Senator Kerry is probably well aware of the stategies involved, and is going to have to embrace many of them if elected, whether he wants to or not. Bush came across wrong in how he put it out, but the fight IS against an ideology, part of which is UBL and the boys. Kerry knows that many of the voting public are not going to take the time to learn and understand the dynamics of not only Radical Islam, but global terror. Hence, making his points about AQ and UBL sound good, but were he to get elected the realities would remain the same. There might be sounds on the news that "look" good, but under the surface things are going to be the way they are for a long, long, long time. This isn't right war-wrong war, it's the new war. And a lot of things cross over each other and effect how others are done. I fully understand that everyone is going to use what they can against each other. The firetruck stuff is ludicrous, Kerry knows it is, but what is Bush going to look like to voters if he says so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Furthermore, DC and BiB, politicians use phrases like "it's a low priority" because it sounds like a !@#$ up but it's totally unprovable. You guys are insisting, and I believe you to be right, that a lot of the stuff Kerry is saying is low priority is actually getting some damn good and forceful work done on it. And that is one way of looking at it, and being totally right. But if you would at it like, say, if we didn't go to war against Iraq and had 200 billion more dollars and a lot more manpower and a lot more people put on the job of protecting the borders and homeland security and stiopping proliferation then a LOT more work could be done and get done. And a lot more priority could be put there. With a lot of the Bush administration's priorities, time, resources, manpower, thought-process, meeting time, etc, spent on Saddam and Iraq in the last year, it's safe to say almost everything else has been given lower priority than it could have received. That is not a misleading thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 You know what is really refreshing? We can disagree and not be plotting spearing contests in a bar parking lot. I for one, kind of like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 You know what is really refreshing? We can disagree and not be plotting spearing contests in a bar parking lot. I for one, kind of like it. 53365[/snapback] I don't know...his sanctimonius reply to me sounded a hell of a lot like the foundation for a spearing contest... (Kidding, KTFABD. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I don't know...his sanctimonius reply to me sounded a hell of a lot like the foundation for a spearing contest... (Kidding, KTFABD. ) 53400[/snapback] I've been challenged to two bar fights in one week. I'm getting too old for this stevestojan. Simpler to just blow them up in their car. For the record, I've always like KTFABD. Even before he was fair and balanced. Nice little tribute to Thirdborn, BTW. Fuggen Paul-never calls-never writes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 No disrespect but... here comes the disrespect...I completely disagree with your interpretation of his motives. And it is only your opinion as this is only my opinion. When you say it can only mean he's either lying or stupid, why I read is he's factual and he's smart and he's artful. He knew exactly what he was saying, and he wasnt speaking to you, he was speaking to the general morons. He saying that amongst the 100s of issues that need to be addressed, some of them are not being addressed. That has to be true. Some arent being prioritized in the order that he thinks they should be prioritized. That HAS to be true by definition, otherwise he would have the same priority list as the Bush Administration. He was, artfully sure, looking for a way to get the public to think he had the best priority list and what Bush was doing was not. Hell---ooo? That's what all politicians do with everything they say every single day. Say (often misleading) things that are factually true to create an image. There are dozens if not hundreds of ways that terrorists may slip into the country illegally. Not all of them are being addressed. I have had a couple incidents at the Canadian border recently with my famiy that were amazing. And I disagree that he was automatically speaking only of domestic intelligence sharing, he was talking about domestic problems of terrorists gaining entry. Much of the intelligence of these terrorists would again by definition be international intelligence and not domestic inner-agency intelligence sharing. You may call it shrewd, you may call it deceitful, you may call it artful, or machiavellian or any number of words but you're saying he's lying when he's not lying and you're saying he's either stupid or uninformed and I doubt you really believe that. He may be a hideous candidate and person but he is not stupid or uninformed. George, on the other hand... 53358[/snapback] Likewise, no disrespect intended, but... When Kerry says: "The war on terror requires good intelligence, yet many of the problems with information-sharing and databases that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed.", I don't see a hell of a lot of nuance to it. It quite simply says: what needs to be done isn't being done. When someone who actually does such things reads it and knows it's wrong...well, the question as to why it's wrong really only has two answers: he doesn't know, or he knows and is being dishonest about it. I don't speak at all to the man's motives in saying that. I simply say: the objective reality is completely other than what Kerry presents it as. Kerry says things that aren't true. His motives...you want to talk about that, start another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I've been challenged to two bar fights in one week. I'm getting too old for this stevestojan. Simpler to just blow them up in their car. For the record, I've always like KTFABD. Even before he was fair and balanced. Nice little tribute to Thirdborn, BTW. Fuggen Paul-never calls-never writes... 53403[/snapback] For the record...so do I. We disagree frequently...and on the subject of John Kerry, very strongly. But I've come to respect his opinions as having an actual rational thought process behind them (which is really all I ask...differences of opinion don't bug me. Justifying them with nothing more than "Fox News/Michael Moore sez..." does.) I don't always understand his thought process...but I respect it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 What do you think the FoxNews poll would be? How many Republicans are watching this debate on ABC or especially CBS for cripes sake? 51716[/snapback] The polls are not from random people watching the telecast who decide to log on to the website afterwards. They take X amount of registered Republicans, the same amount of registered Democrats and X amount of undecided voters. These voters are choosen before the debate even occurs. If you notice Fox News was steering clear of poll numbers because they did not work out in their favor. They did report on it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 The polls are not from random people watching the telecast who decide to log on to the website afterwards. They take X amount of registered Republicans, the same amount of registered Democrats and X amount of undecided voters. These voters are choosen before the debate even occurs. If you notice Fox News was steering clear of poll numbers because they did not work out in their favor. They did report on it though. 55945[/snapback] Not the online ones. Those are from a self-selecting sample and not even remotely statistically valid...and were the ones being quoted immediately after the debate. Since then, though, I haven't heard anyone quote them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 When the debate first started, Kerry had the first question. His hands were shaking alot. But after a while he gained some confidence. I also liked when he was asked one question, where he was asked What exactly will you do in Iraq?And he said I'll tell you exactly what I'll do, then never answered the question. Kerry needed this more than Bush. I'll call it a tie. 51709[/snapback] Call it a tie? I'll call the new england bills game a tie as well! My God Kerry took GWB's lunch, beat up his little brother, killed his dog and kissed his sister! TIE? Wow...I'd call the Little Big Horn more of a tie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts