Alaska Darin Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Bob Dole. 7642[/snapback] What about him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LasBillz Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Let's compare what happened at Crawford with what factually occurred in Vietnam- Kerry, taking fire (something your Boy George never did) decided to run his boat right into the snipers and take them out. It is wonderful irony that this time he ran the boat right up the figurative shore of the Bush's ranch and got Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee, to lead the charge into the sniper's nest. Did he take 'em out? Politically, yes, by identifying for the world who was truly responsible for the Swift Boat Liars- George W. Bush. I may be a bit much for some on this board, but you guys have to start seeing Bush for who he is- a fortunate, unqualified son unworthy of leading our great country. I would be curious to find out how the righties here feel about taking on Iran, which is Bush's next stop on the road to World War. Sadly, I bet you can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 What about him? 7655[/snapback] I thought about mentioning him, but since I couldn't recall Dole being dragged hither and yon in anywhere the same fashion, I wanted to wait for the sure-to-come "You did it too! You did it too!" to be posted. Fait accompli. That the post came from a guy that used a post of mine as a vector to attack mods yesterday adds to the sweetness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Yeah, Dole woke up one morning and decided all by himself that you know what, I want to go on the Sunday talk shows and tell everyone that John Kerry was never disabled in Vietnam. The campaign had nothing to do with it. At any rate. the one thing all the Swift Boat veterans can agree on is that John Kerry was in Vietnam. You can't even find someone to say that George Bush was in Alabama, for christ's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 At any rate. the one thing all the Swift Boat veterans can agree on is that John Kerry was in Vietnam. You can't even find someone to say that George Bush was in Alabama, for christ's sake. 7707[/snapback] That's f'in funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Yeah, Dole woke up one morning and decided all by himself that you know what, I want to go on the Sunday talk shows and tell everyone that John Kerry was never disabled in Vietnam. The campaign had nothing to do with it. At any rate. the one thing all the Swift Boat veterans can agree on is that John Kerry was in Vietnam. You can't even find someone to say that George Bush was in Alabama, for christ's sake. 7707[/snapback] Hmm... Parading of injured people becomes Sunday talk show then becomes Kerry, and ends up in Alabama. Could we have a logic diagram of that, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted August 26, 2004 Author Share Posted August 26, 2004 Did he take 'em out? Politically, yes, by identifying for the world who was truly responsible for the Swift Boat Liars- George W. Bush. All Kerry's trumped up little freak show did yesterday was show how desparate the Kerry campaign is when it comes to the Swifties. You call it a political victory? Okay, I hope to see many more Kerry "victories" like this between now and November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Let's compare what happened at Crawford with what factually occurred in Vietnam- Kerry, taking fire (something your Boy George never did) decided to run his boat right into the snipers and take them out. It is wonderful irony that this time he ran the boat right up the figurative shore of the Bush's ranch and got Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee, to lead the charge into the sniper's nest. Did he take 'em out? Politically, yes, by identifying for the world who was truly responsible for the Swift Boat Liars- George W. Bush. I may be a bit much for some on this board, but you guys have to start seeing Bush for who he is- a fortunate, unqualified son unworthy of leading our great country. I would be curious to find out how the righties here feel about taking on Iran, which is Bush's next stop on the road to World War. Sadly, I bet you can't wait. 7659[/snapback] I'm sick of this crap about GW being responsible for the SBVT ads. If that is the case, he is no more responsible than Kerry is for the ads comparing Bush to Hitler. Of the funds spent by these 527 groups, almost 90% has been in support of Kerry. They have just as many connections as anyone in the Bush camp does. You have absolutely no credible evidence to back up your claim. You just say whatever the liberal media tells you. If you want proof of how the liberal media coverage is trying to aid Kerry, look at the story yesterday of the Bush lawyer resigning because he also counseled the SBV group. I would say 75% of the coverage I saw made no mention at all that there are lawyers in the exact same position with Kerry. Law firms on the Democratic side are representing both the campaign or party and outside groups running ads in the presidential race. Washington attorney Joe Sandler represents the Democratic National Committee and a group airing anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org. You are a bit too much for me because you offer no factual basis for your attacks, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted August 26, 2004 Author Share Posted August 26, 2004 We and the media can debate he said/she said on this issue all we want but the bottom line that can't be changed is this: There are a lot of war veterans out there who felt dishonored and betrayed by what Kerry did when he got back from Vietnam. There are veterans who returned to be treated like peons, in their minds partly due to Kerry. There are POWs who faced torture to avoid making statements that Kerry so readily provided the enemy. These people absolutely HATE Kerry for what they went through. Anything the media or the libs put them through now is like a walk in the park compared to what they went through in the early 70's. These guys aren't going away. They are a permanent thorn in the side of Kerry's presidential efforts. That is unless Kerry finally steps up publicly and makes a decisive statement about the facts regarding the ciriticism he is facing. He doesn't seem willing to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I'm sick of this crap about GW being responsible for the SBVT ads. If that is the case, he is no more responsible than Kerry is for the ads comparing Bush to Hitler. Of the funds spent by these 527 groups, almost 90% has been in support of Kerry. They have just as many connections as anyone in the Bush camp does. You have absolutely no credible evidence to back up your claim. You just say whatever the liberal media tells you. If you want proof of how the liberal media coverage is trying to aid Kerry, look at the story yesterday of the Bush lawyer resigning because he also counseled the SBV group. I would say 75% of the coverage I saw made no mention at all that there are lawyers in the exact same position with Kerry. Law firms on the Democratic side are representing both the campaign or party and outside groups running ads in the presidential race. Washington attorney Joe Sandler represents the Democratic National Committee and a group airing anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org. You are a bit too much for me because you offer no factual basis for your attacks, plain and simple. 7787[/snapback] I saw the complete oposite, although I was watching NBC and CNN. They both brought up numerous times that the NC and Kerry campaigns have attorneys that ahve worked for both 527's and either the DNC or the campaign, so that's BS. Second, between all the cable networks, (MSNBC, CNN and FOX) they gave Mr. Ginsberg the opportunity to bring up that point himself, which he did. Third, the "leftwing media" has given the Swiftboat guys three or four times the free publicity than what they originally paid for. I haven't seen much in the way of the 527 ads from either side but I've seen plenty of Mr. Bush's "approved of" ads here in S. FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I saw the complete oposite, although I was watching NBC and CNN. They both brought up numerous times that the NC and Kerry campaigns have attorneys that ahve worked for both 527's and either the DNC or the campaign, so that's BS. Second, between all the cable networks, (MSNBC, CNN and FOX) they gave Mr. Ginsberg the opportunity to bring up that point himself, which he did. Third, the "leftwing media" has given the Swiftboat guys three or four times the free publicity than what they originally paid for. I haven't seen much in the way of the 527 ads from either side but I've seen plenty of Mr. Bush's "approved of" ads here in S. FL. 7804[/snapback] I'm glad some did point it out; I watched two news broadcasts and read several stories on the internet and only one of them mentioned it. But, my point is this, if both parties do it, then why should it even be much of a story. By making it a story, the media immediately brings Bush into question, even if they do mention the democrat side of the story. People hear that a headline story that a Bush lawyer working for the SVBT group and Bush resigned, so they take that and run - many won't read or listen to the whole story. The media knows that. Why didn't they put a positive spin on it, or view it in favor of the Republicans? In other words, they could commend the lawyer for stepping away from a controversial issue - the 527 groups - and ask why the Democrats aren't doing the same. Instead it is geared negatively towards Bush and his lawyer. That was my point. Its not so much a matter of what was in the story, but why the story was even headline news. Same goes for Max Cleeland going to Texas. I could not believe that was the lead story on NBC. That was obviously a publicity ploy and nothing more, yet they give Cleeland center stage to bash Bush and praise Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoBuffalo Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Most of the nation stood up and applauded Cam Cleeland. Bush says "all 527 ads are bad" But he won't single out the SBVT Smear campaign because it's working for him. After all, Bush smeared and lied about McCain, Cleeland and now Kerry. He's desperate and that's the only way he can win. Cleeland challenged Bush to call for an end to the SBVT smear campaign full of lies and distortion. He wanted to meet with Bush, but Bush hid in his house. I can see him now hiding behind the crack in the curtians peering out... "You're not gonna let em in are ya?" What a whimp. If Rove was smart he would have let lil dubya out and told him to say what the nation wants him to say. Hey, if the campaign continued, then at least dubya would have done his part. But the idiot Rove is outsmarting himself and wow, what a backfire that's about to hit him. The diffference in The SBVT and the other 527's is that the SVBT (and I use the word truth extremely loosely) is that the SBV's are LIARS and involved in personal character assasination using lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Most of the nation stood up and applauded Cam Cleeland. Bush says "all 527 ads are bad" But he won't single out the SBVT Smear campaign because it's working for him. After all, Bush smeared and lied about McCain, Cleeland and now Kerry. He's desperate and that's the only way he can win. Cleeland challenged Bush to call for an end to the SBVT smear campaign full of lies and distortion. He wanted to meet with Bush, but Bush hid in his house. I can see him now hiding behind the crack in the curtians peering out... "You're not gonna let em in are ya?"What a whimp. If Rove was smart he would have let lil dubya out and told him to say what the nation wants him to say. Hey, if the campaign continued, then at least dubya would have done his part. But the idiot Rove is outsmarting himself and wow, what a backfire that's about to hit him. The diffference in The SBVT and the other 527's is that the SVBT (and I use the word truth extremely loosely) is that the SBV's are LIARS and involved in personal character assasination using lies. 8253[/snapback] Yet another one who does not understand the meaning of the word ALL. I think that we need to start providing dictionaries for the parrots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Yet another one who does not understand the meaning of the word ALL. I think that we need to start providing dictionaries for the parrots. 8274[/snapback] I'm shocked that his first post in some time is utter nonsense. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Bush says "all 527 ads are bad" But he won't single out the SBVT Smear campaign 8253[/snapback] In other words, your problem isn't that he didn't condemn the ad. It's that he didn't do it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 If Rove was smart he would have let lil dubya out and told him to say what the nation wants him to say. The entire NATION wants to hear him say this??? THE ENTIRE NATION???? Man, oh, man...I must've missed the rallying cry of milions upon millions of people begging Bush to please, please, please condemn the ads. Did I sleep through that? He's desperate and that's the only way he can win. I think desperate is better defined as being a candidate who relies on four months of Vietnam service to qualify him as the best candidate for President of the United States. There were 19 years in the Senate, and what makes the papers????? Talk about desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 In other words, your problem isn't that he didn't condemn the ad. It's that he didn't do it right. 8281[/snapback] Desperation redefined. I guess as long as the Kerry camp thinks this is a good use of time, they should just keep doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoBuffalo Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Alaska, you are not even worth my time. Ken and Tom, we all know what "All" means. To group the SBVT ads with "all" the others is negligent, irresponsible and weak. That campaign is nothing but a smear on someone's personal reputation and character and based on fabrication and lies. THAT campaign should be singled out by Bush and ended. I have no problem with 527's if they are based on facts and address the issues. Kerry had the integrity to condem and call for an end to 2 ads that were in bad taste. Even McCain wants Bush to single out those lies and smear ads and call to end them. Please, stop spinning this issue guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Alaska, you are not even worth my time.Ken and Tom, we all know what "All" means. To group the SBVT ads with "all" the others is negligent, irresponsible and weak. That campaign is nothing but a smear on someone's personal reputation and character and based on fabrication and lies. THAT campaign should be singled out by Bush and ended. I have no problem with 527's if they are based on facts and address the issues. Kerry had the integrity to condem and call for an end to 2 ads that were in bad taste. Even McCain wants Bush to single out those lies and smear ads and call to end them. Please, stop spinning this issue guys. 8294[/snapback] Ummm...yeah...we are the ones spinning. ALL means ALL. What part of ALL is too difficult for the lemmings to understand? Here, I will make it easy for you: all (ôl) adj. 1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity 2. Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole 3. Being the utmost possible of 4. Every 5. Any whatsoever 6. Pennsylvania. Finished; used up 7. Informal. Being more than one n. The whole of one's fortune, resources, or energy; everything one has pron. 1. The entire or total number, amount, or quantity; totality 2. Everyone; everything adv. 1. Wholly; completely 2. Each; apiece 3. So much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Alaska, you are not even worth my time.Ken and Tom, we all know what "All" means. To group the SBVT ads with "all" the others is negligent, irresponsible and weak. That campaign is nothing but a smear on someone's personal reputation and character and based on fabrication and lies. THAT campaign should be singled out by Bush and ended. I have no problem with 527's if they are based on facts and address the issues. Kerry had the integrity to condem and call for an end to 2 ads that were in bad taste. Even McCain wants Bush to single out those lies and smear ads and call to end them. Please, stop spinning this issue guys. 8294[/snapback] Fabrication and lies? Go read my post. Doesn't matter what's fabrication and lies. Why are we ignoring what FACTS are there? and what they mean? I suppose it's because the idea of thought is lost on this country. Anyone want to blame anyone for anything, blame TV and the internet. They have absolved us of the requirement to think. I think this truly sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts