But we can't call it that when Bush changes his mind-- those are called 'freedom flops'!
But yes, very Moore-ish.
As long as we're on comedy, the latest Daily Show has a video catching Cheney in what are usually called 'blatant lies'. <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/' target='_blank'>Rock on.</a>
Edit: Ok, I re-read my response and I'm way too serious and grumpy right now. Sorry, playoff baseball on right now.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Oct 8 2004, 05:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Oct 8 2004, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What does this mean if he comes a president? I dunno, nothing I s'pose. Have Kerry commented on this? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We're awaiting the rebuttal on the debate tonight. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
John Kerry agrees with me <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> and I'm not even american
If you belive that american politics are a little silly - The whole world agrees <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 8 2004, 03:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 8 2004, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More of the strained flip-flop meme. *yawn*
But we can't call it that when Bush changes his mind-- those are called 'freedom flops'!
right now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is changing your mind, and then there is John Kerry.
John Kerry will say one thing in one place and then pretend he didnt say it the next day and contadict it in his next speach. He is not changing his mind, he is trying to say what you want to hear
"Abortions for some, small american flags for others!"
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Oct 8 2004, 11:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Oct 8 2004, 11:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 8 2004, 03:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 8 2004, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More of the strained flip-flop meme. *yawn*
But we can't call it that when Bush changes his mind-- those are called 'freedom flops'!
right now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is changing your mind, and then there is John Kerry.
John Kerry will say one thing in one place and then pretend he didnt say it the next day and contadict it in his next speach. He is not changing his mind, he is trying to say what you want to hear
"Abortions for some, small american flags for others!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really-- I mean, to once again invoke the daily show, I'd recommend you go watch their 'Bush vs. Bush' debate.
Taken literally, you can show any politician to be a flip flopper.
John Kerry as a spineless flip-flopper is about as accurate a charge as Bush as a brainless idiot (For God's sake, you're the most powerful man in the world-- it's "<b>nuc-le-ar</b>"). Sure, you can assemble the footage to support your claim, but it has to be taken--<b>completely</b>-- at face value.
Peronally I belive that the man that the democratic party chose as thier number one candidate as a leader is possibly intellegent enough to posses an understanding of the issues that doesn't place him on an oversimplified one side or the other position on many of those extreamly complicated issues. I personally could easily defend Kerry's apparent 'flip-flop' positions on all of those topics, becuase I don't have a one sided aproache to any of them. But them again, I'm not going out for president of the united states, I'm clearly to smart for that position.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 9 2004, 08:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 9 2004, 08:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> More of the strained flip-flop meme. *yawn*
But we can't call it that when Bush changes his mind-- those are called 'freedom flops'!
But yes, very Moore-ish.
As long as we're on comedy, the latest Daily Show has a video catching Cheney in what are usually called 'blatant lies'. <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/' target='_blank'>Rock on.</a>
Edit: Ok, I re-read my response and I'm way too serious and grumpy right now. Sorry, playoff baseball on right now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, boring, lets talk about something interesting and novel, like "Bush got it wrong on WMD", because everyone knows that being given, and acting, on the wrong intelligence shows a massive flaw in leadership, whilst consistent changings of position on critical issues is the sign of a trustworthy man who has a clearly held position....
I suspect some of these have been taken completely out of context as in:
"Our Russian allies said that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but I believed at the time that they did"
and turn it into
"Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction" - omg Kerry said that!!!!1111
As was said, Moore style. However, the whole voting against the bullet proof vests things doesnt need MM style twisting, even the pathetic "protest vote" doesnt explain that particularly bad decision.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 10 2004, 11:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 10 2004, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As was said, Moore style. However, the whole voting against the bullet proof vests things doesnt need MM style twisting, even the pathetic "protest vote" doesnt explain that particularly bad decision. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In light of our staggering defecit, I'm pretty sure the bad decision was to pass that particular bill.
Defecits are bad.
Huge defecits are <i>really</i> bad.
It's comically irresponsible to try to pass numerous tax cuts through while your country is trying to fight <i>2</i> wars simultaneously.
I don't mind that protest vote, because I agree with him.
Edit: Also, if you would like to talk about 'pathetic', what about Bush's campaign fooling the networks into broadcasting a campaign speech by cloaking it as a 'policy' speech. Not only were they intentionally deceitful (How <i>completely</i> out of character!) but it was forced because everyone but Bush diehards (who <i>love</i> the emporer's new clothes, by the way) admitted that Kerry cleaned his clock in the first debate.
He couldn't handle Kerry mano a mano, as he's fond of saying, so like a coward he had to try to boost his image by hurling insults at him from afar, with no opportunity for Kerry to defend himself. Or correct any those pesky little lies he's into telling these days.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't mind that protest vote, because I agree with him.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote. Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something.
But I'm sure you'll make any excuse for Mr. Perfect. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 10 2004, 03:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 10 2004, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't mind that protest vote, because I agree with him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote. Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What would you have suggested instead?
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Oct 10 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Oct 10 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 10 2004, 03:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 10 2004, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't mind that protest vote, because I agree with him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote. Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What would you have suggested instead? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Saying "I disagree with this but I will vote for it anyways so noone gets mad at me!" very loudly when you go to cast your vote on the Senate floor, because noone would find fault with you for doing that either. Honestly, it's a no-win situation.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 10 2004, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 10 2004, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't mind that protest vote, because I agree with him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote. Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something.
But I'm sure you'll make any excuse for Mr. Perfect. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When the bill is going to pass by a wide margin, it's a safe bet. Plus, when you loudly proclaim on the Senate floor <i>why</i> you're protesting it, you give a voice to your cause which would otherwise have possibly gotten lost in the shuffle.
I've never said that Kerry is perfect-- I simply won't let engineered talking points define him incorrectly.
War is about sacrifice, isn't it? If over one thousand Americans have pledged their lives in an effort to make us safer, then why can't the wealthiest Americans take a hit to their pocketbook?
Don't forget, he <i>did</i> support the first Bill (actually, he co-sponsored it), which tied the 87 billion to an eliminated tax cut. It didn't pass.
So I guess to its opponents, getting that tax cut to the wealthiest Americans was more important than getting that body armor to the troops-- after all, 15 days did pass between the first and second votes. We kind of ignore that angle . . . Admittedly it's a crude (and partially unfair) criticism but it bears noting that <a href='http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2003.10.html' target='_blank'>18 soldiers</a> did die between bills.
And for the record, his explanation:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "It will get about 90 votes, maybe 85 votes. There's no question it will pass. But I think it is important to make it clear to America this is not the right way. We are--I mean, look, we're spending $30,000 for pickup trucks in this bill. We've got $6,000 cell phones. We're building prisons for them for years to come. We have an extraordinary amount of padding in this expenditure, and we do not have the kind of support on the ground that really protects our troops. There's a better way to carry out this policy, and I intend to stand up and fight for America's interests, for our troops' interests, for the long-term security of our country, and that's what I'm doing with this vote." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know that Bush's usual solution is to throw money at a problem, but doesn't this attitude make the least bit of sense? <i>Especially</i> given the poor planning that seems to be the trademark of this war?
Richard Perle, who helped plan this war, until a <a href='http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/conflictofinterest.html' target='_blank'> conflict of interest</a> made him a liability to the administration: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
**** Cheney on <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer' target='_blank'>'Meet the Press'.</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(And people think <i>Edwards</i> is the sunny optimist?)
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html' target='_blank'>Paul Bremer</a>, who supports the War and George W. Bush-- but was critical of the way it was handled <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that flamingly liberal Bush 41 in his memoirs . . . <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. ... [T]here was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to say, I think John Kerry had a point.
Edit: And while we're on the topic of politics trumping troop support: From the <a href='http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-strategy11oct11,1,7977309.story?coll=la-home-headlines' target='_blank'>LA Times</a> (registration required): <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.
Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi -- where insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the greatest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be a close election.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*shrug*. Gotta have priorities. Sorry folks, but we're going to have to go ahead and ask you to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice at a more politically convenient time.
John Kerry as a spineless flip-flopper is about as accurate a charge as Bush as a brainless idiot (For God's sake, you're the most powerful man in the world-- it's "<b>nuc-le-ar</b>"). Sure, you can assemble the footage to support your claim, but it has to be taken--<b>completely</b>-- at face value. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think he pronounces it that way because of the way it gets you guys all riled up. Keeps you busy complaining that he cannot pronounce words while he gets his agendas through.
The biggest mistake of the Democratic party in the US was to assume George Bush was an idiot that got into the office on a technicality. Isn't one of the first things you learn about combat is to never underestimate your enemy?
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Oct 10 2004, 07:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Oct 10 2004, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Oct 10 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Oct 10 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 10 2004, 03:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 10 2004, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 10 2004, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't mind that protest vote, because I agree with him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote. Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What would you have suggested instead? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Saying "I disagree with this but I will vote for it anyways so noone gets mad at me!" very loudly when you go to cast your vote on the Senate floor, because noone would find fault with you for doing that either. Honestly, it's a no-win situation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with that. When someone mentions how someone voted for/against a bill I lookup the bill that was in question if the candidate doesn't give a reason for his vote. 90% of the time there was something in the bill that was not beneficial to his constituents (Who are afterall, the people they are really supposed to represent)
However in this case Kerry made a terrible mistake by calling it a protest vote. Protest vote some pork project or reforms to the definition of the FDA food pyramid but do not protest vote against military supplies.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 13 2004, 01:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 13 2004, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think he pronounces it that way because of the way it gets you guys all riled up. Keeps you busy complaining that he cannot pronounce words while he gets his agendas through.
The biggest mistake of the Democratic party in the US was to assume George Bush was an idiot that got into the office on a technicality. Isn't one of the first things you learn about combat is to never underestimate your enemy? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I can testify to this mistake, and the beauty of it is that it just keeps repeating itself. For four successive elections Labor strategists have been trying to explain why John Howard keeps winning. Every time he does, the find something to blame, something to explain how he managed to win despite the fact that he's incompetent, no one likes him, and everyones terrified of the direction he's taking Australia. In 2003, it was the "Racist Tampa exploitation" that conned silly voters everywhere. Last week it was an "interest rates scare campaign". And the Liberal Party cant get enough of it, because it demonstrates that the Labor party is constantly underestimating their opponent.
John Kerry as a spineless flip-flopper is about as accurate a charge as Bush as a brainless idiot (For God's sake, you're the most powerful man in the world-- it's "<b>nuc-le-ar</b>"). Sure, you can assemble the footage to support your claim, but it has to be taken--<b>completely</b>-- at face value. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think he pronounces it that way because of the way it gets you guys all riled up. Keeps you busy complaining that he cannot pronounce words while he gets his agendas through.
The biggest mistake of the Democratic party in the US was to assume George Bush was an idiot that got into the office on a technicality. Isn't one of the first things you learn about combat is to never underestimate your enemy? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you're giving him entirely too much credit on that one.
First, that's assuming the only vaild criticism being made of George Bush is 'OMG he made another grammatical mistake!' I don't know of anyone who is so flashbanged by his mangled grammar that they don't bother to familiarize themselves with his policies. Granted, there are some people who will assume he is stupid and evil no matter what, but they're also washed by people who think he's the Greatest American Hero Ever no matter what.
Besides, if this is the theory-- that his flubs grant him some tactical advantage, tell me what this quote (from August 5th) gains him: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"They(our enemies) never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and people . . . and neither do we".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Second, his agendas getting through might be due less to people 'misunderestimating' him and more to the fact that the his party controls, oh, I don't know-- the White House, the Senate, and the House of Reps. That <i>just might</i> be a more direct vehicle than some devious grammatical subterfuge.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 12 2004, 09:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 12 2004, 09:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Besides, if this is the theory-- that his flubs grant him some tactical advantage, tell me what this quote (from August 5th) gains him: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"They(our enemies) never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and people . . . and neither do we".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The time it took for you to point out an obvious verbal mistake that noone can believe he meant to actually harm America could have been better spent pointing out some more tangible errors?
Notice how right now we are debating superficial characteristics of the candidates rather than fully exploring their true positions and beliefs?
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
edited October 2004
Kerry's vote was not a protest against military supplies. It was a protest against wasteful expenditure and the wrong taxpayers being saddled with the bill.
"In fact, I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- Bush *loves* this quote. It's the quintessential Kerry flip-flop, until you take it for what it actually is: Kerry *did* vote in favor of an earlier version of the bill. But when the final version came around, it did not include stipulations that the wealthy would pick up a larger percentage of the tab (we're back to "utility" of wealth here). Kerry sees "$87 billion" and thinks "we can do more for less, and in such a way that minimizes the expense's impact on American economy."
He's not saying "don't help the troops." He *never* said that. He said, as he frequently does, "<i>we can do better.</i>" ____
On a side note, look at what happened: 1) <b>Kerry votes against the bill</b> because it's wasteful and imbalanced. 2) Bush uses the bolded segment above to accuse Kerry of refusing to fund our military in harm's way.
Imagine if Kerry had voted *for* the bill: 1) <b>Kerry votes for the bill</b> because even though it's wasteful, our military needs to be fully funded. 2) Republicans and/or conservative 527's (probably not Bush, since it would undercut his own platform) use the bolded segment above to say that "Kerry claims to be against spending, but here he is voting in favor of an $87 billion blank check to the US military!
Kerry can't win for winning, because Republicans seem to delight in taking his actions out of context and misrepresenting what he says -- (all points taken from <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/politics/campaign/08campaign.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all' target='_blank'>NYTimes, Oct 8</a> [requires login]):<ul><li>The "98 tax increases" that he voted for? The vast majority of them were a single bill put together by Bill Clinton that increased income tax for the very wealthy, *not* the average middle-class American.</li><li>His refusal to support middle-class tax breaks? That was part of a much larger 2001 tax bill that he opposed. Kerry has already said he would not rescind the middle-class tax breaks that Bush put through in his term.</li><li>The Bush campaign loves Kerry's comment from the first debate about an "international test" for defending our country. Kerry wasn't saying we'd put national security in the hands of foreign countries, he was saying that any military action needs to be *for legitimate reasons* - in the eyes of the American people *and* in the eyes of the rest of the world.</li><li>Kerry voted for a formula that "helped cause the increase in Medicare premiums." It's technically correct - Kerry *did* vote for the formula... but so did 43 Republican Senators.</li></ul>I won't say the Democrats don't do this - they do. But not nearly to the extent that the Republicans do. My roommate summed it up nicely: A Democratic outlook is nuanced and complex; you can't fit its ideals on a bumper sticker. There will never be a liberal answer to www.godhatesf*gs.com, because there is not a liberal position that black-and-white. And the complexity of our positions leaves them wide-open for our opponents to take them out of context... which seems to be the only platform Bush has in this election.
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Oct 12 2004, 11:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Oct 12 2004, 11:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I won't say the Democrats don't do this - they do. But not nearly to the extent that the Republicans do. My roommate summed it up nicely: A Democratic outlook is nuanced and complex; you can't fit its ideals on a bumper sticker. There will never be a liberal answer to www.godhatesf*gs.com, because there is not a liberal position that black-and-white. And the complexity of our positions leaves them wide-open for our opponents to take them out of context... which seems to be the only platform Bush has in this election. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would like to say that I have a bit of a quantum view on politics. I try to break a position down to its basic components. Once I have it down to the basic components I can formulate a solid yes/no position on each one. This become my core set of beliefs. The summation of these basic components can form the more complex issues we see every day.
Now in this conglomerate there are conflicting viewpoints. However I can give more weight to certain basic components to establish my position on a topic. There is nuance but it is based upon core beliefs of right or wrong, necessary or desired.
But to say this means I see in 'black and white' without evaluating the situation on a case by case basis is not being honest.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 12 2004, 04:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 12 2004, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 12 2004, 09:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 12 2004, 09:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Besides, if this is the theory-- that his flubs grant him some tactical advantage, tell me what this quote (from August 5th) gains him: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"They(our enemies) never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and people . . . and neither do we".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The time it took for you to point out an obvious verbal mistake that noone can believe he meant to actually harm America could have been better spent pointing out some more tangible errors?
Notice how right now we are debating superficial characteristics of the candidates rather than fully exploring their true positions and beliefs? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Er . . . you made the point that you think that Bush's verbal gaffes are some sort of carefully crafted rope-a-dope technique, so I took one moment to point out an instance where one of his trademarked errors couldn't possibly have been engineered to gain him an advantage.
<i>You</i> took the time to address it after my initial post-- but I'm being irresponsible and dodgy with a follow up? I should have let your theory stand without any sort of response?
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the verbal issue was the one item <i>you</i> pulled out of a rather large-- and more involved-- post I made.*
Another edit: In re-reading the original post, the contextual significance of pointing out Bush's grammatical error was to demonstrate that it's an easy flaw to caricature, but it's hardly accurate to derive some sort of 'Bush as idiot' theme from it. Which seems to . . . uh . . have your agreement.
Color me confused . . .
And sure we're arguing superficial characteristics, but correct me if I'm wrong-- the discussion forums have definitely handled more substantive debate. It's not as if this tangent comes precisely at the cost of something more significant-- All these various critiques can certainly co-exist peacefully.
*Edit: I made an error here-- the quote wizard pulled was from a shorter post I made on the initial page (for some reason, I thought it was the longer post on this page), so my criticism there was <i>partially</i> unfounded (It still wasn't the <i>only</i> point I made). I stand by the rest.
To me, politics is like a game of chess or a boxing match. You lay a careful groundwork to establish a superior position or attack with the goal of dislodging the opponent from their superior position.
Bush has defined his positions and it is up to the Kerry Campaign to establish their own or tear down those of Bush. There really is nothing more that Bush needs to say to define who he is. This has always been the advantage of the incumbant. The world knows that he makes grammatical and verbal mistakes and slips. However, this topic has been taken as far as possible. No new supporters are going to be gained by attacking Bush's grammar but some can be turned off.
Now we have been going back and forth on this topic for a few posts. Yet nothing new has been added to the debate. Kerry's position is no more well defined or advanced than it was when this topic came up. It is a game of stalling. A feint to get your opponent to attack an assumed vulnerability that can gain them no ground.
At this point in time the election is not much more than a war of attrition. The lines have been drawn and the factions face each other across a no mans land.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And sure we're arguing superficial characteristics, but correct me if I'm wrong-- the discussion forums have definitely handled more substantive debate. It's not as if this tangent comes precisely at the cost of something more significant-- All these various critiques can certainly co-exist peacefully. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that is my point. I meant it as a type of metaphor for the Republican strategy of getting an opponent to waste their time on an issue that really can gain them no ground.
Because the election is almost around the corner, time is on the side of the republicans. The more time spent discussing topics that will not sway more voters to the Democrats is just an advantage to the Republicans. Not that I can imagine anyone being swayed at this point in time. Especially on these forums.
I guess it is best to take my posts as less of a political attack or point but rather a comment on one of the strategies employed by the Bush campaign. Like a connoisseur of fine wines I consider myself a connoisseur of political strategies. A skillfull or artful implementation of a strategy, regardless of the candidate that employs it will draw my attention.
edit: As a followup: Kerry should have had this election wrapped up months ago. His campaign lacked the focus necessary to do so early on. They are getting on track now. I just wonder if they got it together in time.
And while your point and example are well taken, the forum model isn't entirely analagous to general election media delivery-- it isn't nearly as limiting as, say, a news cycle.
So while yes, I did waste some time and focus on your rabbit chase, it's but a small portion of the potential time I could waste here <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
But yes, this is precisely the sort of thing that has kept Kerry off balance throughout the campaign-- trying to balance his bandwidth between a) defining <i>himself</i>, defending himself from Bush's/surrogate attacks, and attacking Bush.
Seeing as how Bush's team is partiularly effective at launching B) (especially as seen in that Daily Show video), it's painfully obvious why it's taken him so long to catch his stride.
And while your point and example are well taken, the forum model isn't entirely analagous to general election media delivery-- it isn't nearly as limiting as, say, a news cycle.
So while yes, I did waste some time and focus on your rabbit chase, it's but a small portion of the potential time I could waste here <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
But yes, this is precisely the sort of thing that has kept Kerry off balance throughout the campaign-- trying to balance his bandwidth between a) defining <i>himself</i>, defending himself from Bush's/surrogate attacks, and attacking Bush.
Seeing as how Bush's team is partiularly effective at launching B) (especially as seen in that Daily Show video), it's painfully obvious why it's taken him so long to catch his stride. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh good Lord, I don't even want to think about the total amount of time I waste on these forums in general. I think I would cry.
I missed the Daily Show episode (work from 9-5 grad school from 6-9) I usually pass out when I get home. It was one of the episodes I was really looking forward to see.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 10 2004, 03:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 10 2004, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa now reasa, let's not get snippy and making stupid statements because someone has different political beliefs than you. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> (that's the definition of political prejudice, fyi <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
First, let's not start getting too off topic or narrowminded by bringing US troops into the debate.
Second, <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something.
But I'm sure you'll make any excuse for Mr. Perfect. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't care what people think about Kerry. I just wished we all used some more <i>respect</i> towards one another. People tearing up Bush or Kerry's past makes me sick. But if you want to talk past perhaps we should take a look at a fact of recent cases of presidents lying to the American people:
<b>Clinton: lied about having oral sex</b>
result: court fees, international embarassment, nobody was killed, reserve growth In my opinion not really bad except he did it in one of the nations with the most repressed sexuality in the world (US has a strong puritan traditional influence)
<b>Bush administration: lied about Iraq having WMDs and thus giving cause for war</b>
result: Saddam finally at the mercy of the Bush family's revenge but massive Iraqi casulaties and many good US soldiers killed, the world hates the US far more and terrorism has <i>increased</i>; reducing taxes while spending reserves on war is an economic disaster that has been repeated over and over thoughout history (it's ok in the short term but in the long run it causes major issues)
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+Oct 12 2004, 02:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5 @ Oct 12 2004, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Bush: lied about Iraq having WMDs and thus giving cause for war</b>
result: Saddam finally at the mercy of the Bush family's revenge but massive Iraqi casulaties and many good US soldiers killed, the world hates the US far more and terrorism has <i>increased</i>; reducing taxes while spending reserves on war is an economic disaster that has been repeated over and over thoughout history (it's ok in the short term but in the long run it causes major issues)
Compare? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Lying implies that they knew what they were saying was incorrect to begin with. I got to see the briefings the president received leading up to the Iraq war. If there was lying going on, it wasn't the president.
Comments
But we can't call it that when Bush changes his mind-- those are called 'freedom flops'!
But yes, very Moore-ish.
As long as we're on comedy, the latest Daily Show has a video catching Cheney in what are usually called 'blatant lies'. <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/' target='_blank'>Rock on.</a>
Edit: Ok, I re-read my response and I'm way too serious and grumpy right now. Sorry, playoff baseball on right now.
Going to watch the daily show one next.
We're awaiting the rebuttal on the debate tonight. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If you belive that american politics are a little silly - The whole world agrees <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But we can't call it that when Bush changes his mind-- those are called 'freedom flops'!
right now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is changing your mind, and then there is John Kerry.
John Kerry will say one thing in one place and then pretend he didnt say it the next day and contadict it in his next speach. He is not changing his mind, he is trying to say what you want to hear
"Abortions for some, small american flags for others!"
But we can't call it that when Bush changes his mind-- those are called 'freedom flops'!
right now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is changing your mind, and then there is John Kerry.
John Kerry will say one thing in one place and then pretend he didnt say it the next day and contadict it in his next speach. He is not changing his mind, he is trying to say what you want to hear
"Abortions for some, small american flags for others!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really-- I mean, to once again invoke the daily show, I'd recommend you go watch their 'Bush vs. Bush' debate.
Taken literally, you can show any politician to be a flip flopper.
John Kerry as a spineless flip-flopper is about as accurate a charge as Bush as a brainless idiot (For God's sake, you're the most powerful man in the world-- it's "<b>nuc-le-ar</b>"). Sure, you can assemble the footage to support your claim, but it has to be taken--<b>completely</b>-- at face value.
But we can't call it that when Bush changes his mind-- those are called 'freedom flops'!
But yes, very Moore-ish.
As long as we're on comedy, the latest Daily Show has a video catching Cheney in what are usually called 'blatant lies'. <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/' target='_blank'>Rock on.</a>
Edit: Ok, I re-read my response and I'm way too serious and grumpy right now. Sorry, playoff baseball on right now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, boring, lets talk about something interesting and novel, like "Bush got it wrong on WMD", because everyone knows that being given, and acting, on the wrong intelligence shows a massive flaw in leadership, whilst consistent changings of position on critical issues is the sign of a trustworthy man who has a clearly held position....
I suspect some of these have been taken completely out of context as in:
"Our Russian allies said that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but I believed at the time that they did"
and turn it into
"Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction" - omg Kerry said that!!!!1111
As was said, Moore style. However, the whole voting against the bullet proof vests things doesnt need MM style twisting, even the pathetic "protest vote" doesnt explain that particularly bad decision.
In light of our staggering defecit, I'm pretty sure the bad decision was to pass that particular bill.
Defecits are bad.
Huge defecits are <i>really</i> bad.
It's comically irresponsible to try to pass numerous tax cuts through while your country is trying to fight <i>2</i> wars simultaneously.
I don't mind that protest vote, because I agree with him.
Edit: Also, if you would like to talk about 'pathetic', what about Bush's campaign fooling the networks into broadcasting a campaign speech by cloaking it as a 'policy' speech. Not only were they intentionally deceitful (How <i>completely</i> out of character!) but it was forced because everyone but Bush diehards (who <i>love</i> the emporer's new clothes, by the way) admitted that Kerry cleaned his clock in the first debate.
He couldn't handle Kerry mano a mano, as he's fond of saying, so like a coward he had to try to boost his image by hurling insults at him from afar, with no opportunity for Kerry to defend himself. Or correct any those pesky little lies he's into telling these days.
<i><b>Pathetic</b></i>.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote.
Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something.
But I'm sure you'll make any excuse for Mr. Perfect. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote.
Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would you have suggested instead?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote.
Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would you have suggested instead? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saying "I disagree with this but I will vote for it anyways so noone gets mad at me!" very loudly when you go to cast your vote on the Senate floor, because noone would find fault with you for doing that either. Honestly, it's a no-win situation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote.
Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something.
But I'm sure you'll make any excuse for Mr. Perfect. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When the bill is going to pass by a wide margin, it's a safe bet. Plus, when you loudly proclaim on the Senate floor <i>why</i> you're protesting it, you give a voice to your cause which would otherwise have possibly gotten lost in the shuffle.
I've never said that Kerry is perfect-- I simply won't let engineered talking points define him incorrectly.
War is about sacrifice, isn't it? If over one thousand Americans have pledged their lives in an effort to make us safer, then why can't the wealthiest Americans take a hit to their pocketbook?
Don't forget, he <i>did</i> support the first Bill (actually, he co-sponsored it), which tied the 87 billion to an eliminated tax cut. It didn't pass.
So I guess to its opponents, getting that tax cut to the wealthiest Americans was more important than getting that body armor to the troops-- after all, 15 days did pass between the first and second votes. We kind of ignore that angle . . . Admittedly it's a crude (and partially unfair) criticism but it bears noting that <a href='http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2003.10.html' target='_blank'>18 soldiers</a> did die between bills.
And for the record, his explanation:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "It will get about 90 votes, maybe 85 votes. There's no question it will pass. But I think it is important to make it clear to America this is not the right way. We are--I mean, look, we're spending $30,000 for pickup trucks in this bill. We've got $6,000 cell phones. We're building prisons for them for years to come. We have an extraordinary amount of padding in this expenditure, and we do not have the kind of support on the ground that really protects our troops. There's a better way to carry out this policy, and I intend to stand up and fight for America's interests, for our troops' interests, for the long-term security of our country, and that's what I'm doing with this vote." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know that Bush's usual solution is to throw money at a problem, but doesn't this attitude make the least bit of sense? <i>Especially</i> given the poor planning that seems to be the trademark of this war?
Richard Perle, who helped plan this war, until a <a href='http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/conflictofinterest.html' target='_blank'> conflict of interest</a> made him a liability to the administration:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
**** Cheney on <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer' target='_blank'>'Meet the Press'.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(And people think <i>Edwards</i> is the sunny optimist?)
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html' target='_blank'>Paul Bremer</a>, who supports the War and George W. Bush-- but was critical of the way it was handled
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that flamingly liberal Bush 41 in his memoirs . . .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. ... [T]here was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to say, I think John Kerry had a point.
Edit: And while we're on the topic of politics trumping troop support:
From the <a href='http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-strategy11oct11,1,7977309.story?coll=la-home-headlines' target='_blank'>LA Times</a> (registration required):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.
Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi -- where insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the greatest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be a close election.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*shrug*. Gotta have priorities. Sorry folks, but we're going to have to go ahead and ask you to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice at a more politically convenient time.
John Kerry as a spineless flip-flopper is about as accurate a charge as Bush as a brainless idiot (For God's sake, you're the most powerful man in the world-- it's "<b>nuc-le-ar</b>"). Sure, you can assemble the footage to support your claim, but it has to be taken--<b>completely</b>-- at face value. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he pronounces it that way because of the way it gets you guys all riled up. Keeps you busy complaining that he cannot pronounce words while he gets his agendas through.
The biggest mistake of the Democratic party in the US was to assume George Bush was an idiot that got into the office on a technicality. Isn't one of the first things you learn about combat is to never underestimate your enemy?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that "protest" vote.
Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would you have suggested instead? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saying "I disagree with this but I will vote for it anyways so noone gets mad at me!" very loudly when you go to cast your vote on the Senate floor, because noone would find fault with you for doing that either. Honestly, it's a no-win situation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with that. When someone mentions how someone voted for/against a bill I lookup the bill that was in question if the candidate doesn't give a reason for his vote. 90% of the time there was something in the bill that was not beneficial to his constituents (Who are afterall, the people they are really supposed to represent)
However in this case Kerry made a terrible mistake by calling it a protest vote. Protest vote some pork project or reforms to the definition of the FDA food pyramid but do not protest vote against military supplies.
The biggest mistake of the Democratic party in the US was to assume George Bush was an idiot that got into the office on a technicality. Isn't one of the first things you learn about combat is to never underestimate your enemy? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can testify to this mistake, and the beauty of it is that it just keeps repeating itself. For four successive elections Labor strategists have been trying to explain why John Howard keeps winning. Every time he does, the find something to blame, something to explain how he managed to win despite the fact that he's incompetent, no one likes him, and everyones terrified of the direction he's taking Australia. In 2003, it was the "Racist Tampa exploitation" that conned silly voters everywhere. Last week it was an "interest rates scare campaign". And the Liberal Party cant get enough of it, because it demonstrates that the Labor party is constantly underestimating their opponent.
John Kerry as a spineless flip-flopper is about as accurate a charge as Bush as a brainless idiot (For God's sake, you're the most powerful man in the world-- it's "<b>nuc-le-ar</b>"). Sure, you can assemble the footage to support your claim, but it has to be taken--<b>completely</b>-- at face value. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he pronounces it that way because of the way it gets you guys all riled up. Keeps you busy complaining that he cannot pronounce words while he gets his agendas through.
The biggest mistake of the Democratic party in the US was to assume George Bush was an idiot that got into the office on a technicality. Isn't one of the first things you learn about combat is to never underestimate your enemy? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're giving him entirely too much credit on that one.
First, that's assuming the only vaild criticism being made of George Bush is 'OMG he made another grammatical mistake!' I don't know of anyone who is so flashbanged by his mangled grammar that they don't bother to familiarize themselves with his policies. Granted, there are some people who will assume he is stupid and evil no matter what, but they're also washed by people who think he's the Greatest American Hero Ever no matter what.
Besides, if this is the theory-- that his flubs grant him some tactical advantage, tell me what this quote (from August 5th) gains him:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"They(our enemies) never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and people . . . and neither do we".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Second, his agendas getting through might be due less to people 'misunderestimating' him and more to the fact that the his party controls, oh, I don't know-- the White House, the Senate, and the House of Reps. That <i>just might</i> be a more direct vehicle than some devious grammatical subterfuge.
Besides, if this is the theory-- that his flubs grant him some tactical advantage, tell me what this quote (from August 5th) gains him:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"They(our enemies) never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and people . . . and neither do we".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The time it took for you to point out an obvious verbal mistake that noone can believe he meant to actually harm America could have been better spent pointing out some more tangible errors?
Notice how right now we are debating superficial characteristics of the candidates rather than fully exploring their true positions and beliefs?
"In fact, I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- Bush *loves* this quote. It's the quintessential Kerry flip-flop, until you take it for what it actually is: Kerry *did* vote in favor of an earlier version of the bill. But when the final version came around, it did not include stipulations that the wealthy would pick up a larger percentage of the tab (we're back to "utility" of wealth here). Kerry sees "$87 billion" and thinks "we can do more for less, and in such a way that minimizes the expense's impact on American economy."
He's not saying "don't help the troops." He *never* said that. He said, as he frequently does, "<i>we can do better.</i>"
____
On a side note, look at what happened:
1) <b>Kerry votes against the bill</b> because it's wasteful and imbalanced.
2) Bush uses the bolded segment above to accuse Kerry of refusing to fund our military in harm's way.
Imagine if Kerry had voted *for* the bill:
1) <b>Kerry votes for the bill</b> because even though it's wasteful, our military needs to be fully funded.
2) Republicans and/or conservative 527's (probably not Bush, since it would undercut his own platform) use the bolded segment above to say that "Kerry claims to be against spending, but here he is voting in favor of an $87 billion blank check to the US military!
Kerry can't win for winning, because Republicans seem to delight in taking his actions out of context and misrepresenting what he says -- (all points taken from <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/politics/campaign/08campaign.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all' target='_blank'>NYTimes, Oct 8</a> [requires login]):<ul><li>The "98 tax increases" that he voted for? The vast majority of them were a single bill put together by Bill Clinton that increased income tax for the very wealthy, *not* the average middle-class American.</li><li>His refusal to support middle-class tax breaks? That was part of a much larger 2001 tax bill that he opposed. Kerry has already said he would not rescind the middle-class tax breaks that Bush put through in his term.</li><li>The Bush campaign loves Kerry's comment from the first debate about an "international test" for defending our country. Kerry wasn't saying we'd put national security in the hands of foreign countries, he was saying that any military action needs to be *for legitimate reasons* - in the eyes of the American people *and* in the eyes of the rest of the world.</li><li>Kerry voted for a formula that "helped cause the increase in Medicare premiums." It's technically correct - Kerry *did* vote for the formula... but so did 43 Republican Senators.</li></ul>I won't say the Democrats don't do this - they do. But not nearly to the extent that the Republicans do. My roommate summed it up nicely: A Democratic outlook is nuanced and complex; you can't fit its ideals on a bumper sticker. There will never be a liberal answer to www.godhatesf*gs.com, because there is not a liberal position that black-and-white. And the complexity of our positions leaves them wide-open for our opponents to take them out of context... which seems to be the only platform Bush has in this election.
I would like to say that I have a bit of a quantum view on politics. I try to break a position down to its basic components. Once I have it down to the basic components I can formulate a solid yes/no position on each one. This become my core set of beliefs. The summation of these basic components can form the more complex issues we see every day.
Now in this conglomerate there are conflicting viewpoints. However I can give more weight to certain basic components to establish my position on a topic. There is nuance but it is based upon core beliefs of right or wrong, necessary or desired.
But to say this means I see in 'black and white' without evaluating the situation on a case by case basis is not being honest.
Besides, if this is the theory-- that his flubs grant him some tactical advantage, tell me what this quote (from August 5th) gains him:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"They(our enemies) never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and people . . . and neither do we".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The time it took for you to point out an obvious verbal mistake that noone can believe he meant to actually harm America could have been better spent pointing out some more tangible errors?
Notice how right now we are debating superficial characteristics of the candidates rather than fully exploring their true positions and beliefs? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er . . . you made the point that you think that Bush's verbal gaffes are some sort of carefully crafted rope-a-dope technique, so I took one moment to point out an instance where one of his trademarked errors couldn't possibly have been engineered to gain him an advantage.
<i>You</i> took the time to address it after my initial post-- but I'm being irresponsible and dodgy with a follow up? I should have let your theory stand without any sort of response?
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the verbal issue was the one item <i>you</i> pulled out of a rather large-- and more involved-- post I made.*
Another edit: In re-reading the original post, the contextual significance of pointing out Bush's grammatical error was to demonstrate that it's an easy flaw to caricature, but it's hardly accurate to derive some sort of 'Bush as idiot' theme from it. Which seems to . . . uh . . have your agreement.
Color me confused . . .
And sure we're arguing superficial characteristics, but correct me if I'm wrong-- the discussion forums have definitely handled more substantive debate. It's not as if this tangent comes precisely at the cost of something more significant-- All these various critiques can certainly co-exist peacefully.
*Edit: I made an error here-- the quote wizard pulled was from a shorter post I made on the initial page (for some reason, I thought it was the longer post on this page), so my criticism there was <i>partially</i> unfounded (It still wasn't the <i>only</i> point I made). I stand by the rest.
To me, politics is like a game of chess or a boxing match. You lay a careful groundwork to establish a superior position or attack with the goal of dislodging the opponent from their superior position.
Bush has defined his positions and it is up to the Kerry Campaign to establish their own or tear down those of Bush. There really is nothing more that Bush needs to say to define who he is. This has always been the advantage of the incumbant. The world knows that he makes grammatical and verbal mistakes and slips. However, this topic has been taken as far as possible. No new supporters are going to be gained by attacking Bush's grammar but some can be turned off.
Now we have been going back and forth on this topic for a few posts. Yet nothing new has been added to the debate. Kerry's position is no more well defined or advanced than it was when this topic came up. It is a game of stalling. A feint to get your opponent to attack an assumed vulnerability that can gain them no ground.
At this point in time the election is not much more than a war of attrition. The lines have been drawn and the factions face each other across a no mans land.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And sure we're arguing superficial characteristics, but correct me if I'm wrong-- the discussion forums have definitely handled more substantive debate. It's not as if this tangent comes precisely at the cost of something more significant-- All these various critiques can certainly co-exist peacefully. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that is my point. I meant it as a type of metaphor for the Republican strategy of getting an opponent to waste their time on an issue that really can gain them no ground.
Because the election is almost around the corner, time is on the side of the republicans. The more time spent discussing topics that will not sway more voters to the Democrats is just an advantage to the Republicans. Not that I can imagine anyone being swayed at this point in time. Especially on these forums.
I guess it is best to take my posts as less of a political attack or point but rather a comment on one of the strategies employed by the Bush campaign. Like a connoisseur of fine wines I consider myself a connoisseur of political strategies. A skillfull or artful implementation of a strategy, regardless of the candidate that employs it will draw my attention.
edit: As a followup: Kerry should have had this election wrapped up months ago. His campaign lacked the focus necessary to do so early on. They are getting on track now. I just wonder if they got it together in time.
And while your point and example are well taken, the forum model isn't entirely analagous to general election media delivery-- it isn't nearly as limiting as, say, a news cycle.
So while yes, I did waste some time and focus on your rabbit chase, it's but a small portion of the potential time I could waste here <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
But yes, this is precisely the sort of thing that has kept Kerry off balance throughout the campaign-- trying to balance his bandwidth between a) defining <i>himself</i>, defending himself from Bush's/surrogate attacks, and attacking Bush.
Seeing as how Bush's team is partiularly effective at launching B) (especially as seen in that Daily Show video), it's painfully obvious why it's taken him so long to catch his stride.
And while your point and example are well taken, the forum model isn't entirely analagous to general election media delivery-- it isn't nearly as limiting as, say, a news cycle.
So while yes, I did waste some time and focus on your rabbit chase, it's but a small portion of the potential time I could waste here <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
But yes, this is precisely the sort of thing that has kept Kerry off balance throughout the campaign-- trying to balance his bandwidth between a) defining <i>himself</i>, defending himself from Bush's/surrogate attacks, and attacking Bush.
Seeing as how Bush's team is partiularly effective at launching B) (especially as seen in that Daily Show video), it's painfully obvious why it's taken him so long to catch his stride. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh good Lord, I don't even want to think about the total amount of time I waste on these forums in general. I think I would cry.
I missed the Daily Show episode (work from 9-5 grad school from 6-9) I usually pass out when I get home. It was one of the episodes I was really looking forward to see.
Whoa now reasa, let's not get snippy and making stupid statements because someone has different political beliefs than you. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> (that's the definition of political prejudice, fyi <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
First, let's not start getting too off topic or narrowminded by bringing US troops into the debate.
Second,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Voting against important bills in the Senate is not a good way to "protest" something.
But I'm sure you'll make any excuse for Mr. Perfect. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't care what people think about Kerry. I just wished we all used some more <i>respect</i> towards one another. People tearing up Bush or Kerry's past makes me sick. But if you want to talk past perhaps we should take a look at a fact of recent cases of presidents lying to the American people:
<b>Clinton: lied about having oral sex</b>
result: court fees, international embarassment, nobody was killed, reserve growth
In my opinion not really bad except he did it in one of the nations with the most repressed sexuality in the world (US has a strong puritan traditional influence)
<b>Bush administration: lied about Iraq having WMDs and thus giving cause for war</b>
result: Saddam finally at the mercy of the Bush family's revenge but massive Iraqi casulaties and many good US soldiers killed, the world hates the US far more and terrorism has <i>increased</i>; reducing taxes while spending reserves on war is an economic disaster that has been repeated over and over thoughout history (it's ok in the short term but in the long run it causes major issues)
Compare morality?
~added: word after compare and Bush~
<b>Bush: lied about Iraq having WMDs and thus giving cause for war</b>
result: Saddam finally at the mercy of the Bush family's revenge but massive Iraqi casulaties and many good US soldiers killed, the world hates the US far more and terrorism has <i>increased</i>; reducing taxes while spending reserves on war is an economic disaster that has been repeated over and over thoughout history (it's ok in the short term but in the long run it causes major issues)
Compare? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lying implies that they knew what they were saying was incorrect to begin with. I got to see the briefings the president received leading up to the Iraq war. If there was lying going on, it wasn't the president.
~edit~
Curse you spelling. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->