We never attack John Kerry's combat heroism personally; that's what we pay crackpot Kerry-hating veterans group to do.
It was wrong for Moveon.org to host a 30-second never-broadcast web-only immediately-removed and apologized-for spot that compared Bush to Hitler and that Sen. Kerry condemned. It is right for the Swiftvets to engage in a coordinated and well-financed campaign of deception and there is no need for the Bush campaign to condemn it.
War is a "family value."
If senior citizens want cheaper drug prices from Canada, they should move to Canada. Traitors.
Major oil corporations should shape American energy policy. Even if it means highest gasoline prices ever.
Donald Rumsfeld is doing a terrific job as Pentagon boss -- if you ignore his being suckered by turncoat Ahmed Chalabi who said grateful Iraqis would welcome American liberators. Ignore his insistence on a smaller number of soldiers deployed to Iraq in the first crucial weeks and months following the fall of Hussein. If you ignore 953 US soldiers dead and 5,976 wounded in a conflict already "accomplished"; and 12,000 Iraq civilians killed. Ignore Abu Ghraib prison abuses. And ignore that troops going to Iraq had to buy own costly body armor, then weld scrap metal onto thin-skinned Humvees. Because the Republicans support the troops.
Dick Cheney was right to ridicule John Kerry for saying he'd be "sensitive" in fighting war. Cheney was also right same day when he said on radio that battle in Najaf "is obviously a sensitive area, and we are very much aware of its sensitivity."
Kerry betrayed the troops by not voting for the $87 billion needed to give them what they needed. Republicans did not betray the troops by first voting against Kerry's bill providing the exact same support to the troops but with provisions to pay for it now rather than borrow from our children, and passing their own bill instead immediately thereafter.
The CIA was wrong when the right attacked them for not insisting there were WMDs in Iraq, and is to blame for later convincing Bush, who had already ordered troops to deploy, that WMDs were in Iraq.
Protestors and those who don't agree with the invasion of Iraq don't support the
"war on terror." The fact that few people protested our deployment to Afghanistan and many people argue that the resources spent on Iraq could have been better spent in fighting Al Queda is a trick.
Firing American workers and sending their jobs to India is unavoidable economic dislocation. Laid-off manufacturing workers don't mind asking, "Would you like fries with that?"
Courts should not write new rights into Constitution. But rewriting the Constitution to deny the rights of gay Americans is OK.
It could take years before stem cell research will help with Alzheimer's, MS, and Parkinson's. So Why start now? (Thanks, "Daily Show.")
Republicans don't wince at Bushisms like these:
"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." -- Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004. (Let's give him a hand.)
"So thank you for reminding me about the importance of being a good mom and a great volunteer as well." -- St. Louis, Jan. 5, 2004. (So that's where some of Laura's clothes went.)
"I'm the master of low expectations." -- Air Force One, June 4, 2003. (Any lower and we're talking chimpanzee.)
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas -- that says, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." -- Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002.
Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector and in the heartland, we understand how unfair the death penalty is." -- Omaha, Neb., Feb. 28, 2001. (What's the kill switch on this tractor do?)
"Do you have blacks, too?" to Brazilian President Cardoso. -- Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001. (Wow, they're everywhere.)
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." -- Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001. (Let's start with "My Pet Goat.")
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." -- Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000. (Kids, don't try this at home.)
"They misunderestimated me." -- Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000. (Not this time, W.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I have pictures that I took myself of protesters -protesting the war in Afghanistan 7 days after 9/11 in front of the Liberty Bell. I will have to post them as I has so much fun messing with them that day-challenging all of the 'points' and leaving them mad and with no answers. Thank you for reminding me of a good memory!
When George (Orwell) Soros uses his soft money on morons.org, er, moveon.org, and considers a "Bush is Hitler" video to be a FINALIST in a "Bush in 60 Seconds" contest, well, you see, that's just the First Amendment in play, and all's fair.
When Michael Moore lowers the bar to a new nadir in logical fallacy in presenting the Democrat position, making claims so outlandish that even intellectual Democrats have to push away from him to avoid the stink, that is just a "firebrand activist who has a right to his opinions, and getting the discussion going, and asking the tough questions".
I see.
And yet, when Swiftboad Vets present their side of the Kerry War Hero story, that is the most scandalous dirty trick ever to be dredged from the right-wing playbook, ever.
Democrats demand that you do as they say, not as they do. Hypocrites.
Redleg: no, I'm mad about the truth. It is true that if it didn't have an impact on the campaign I wouldn't care. Because it does your candidate is LYING to the American people and voters will be basing their decisions on LIES. But perhaps you think that is the way our Republic should be governed - with LIES.
Your ire at "taking Bush's quotes out of context" is hilarious. How, exactly, would putting any of these quotes "in context" make them any different? Was W speaking at "put food on your family" event? :)
Your point about the UN or the "need" to invade ignores my central premise - that we should be at WAR with Terror and not put it on the back burner. Saddam was bad, a threat, and did NOT DESERVE PRIORITY STATUS. Or perhaps you forgot that on 9/11 no Iraqis were involved.
You say: "Kerry I believe asked the day prior to Saddam being captured 'We haven't got Saddam yet.' He was wrong" - uhhh, no, he was right. We didn't have Saddam yet. You yourself say it was the day PRIOR to his being captured. But I won't play like TYAAPA and I do understand your point. We will capture UBL. Many, including me, feel that if we hadn't invaded Iraq we already would have, and AQ has had time to reorganize and form new terror cells so that even by capturing UBL now AQ will not be as hurt as they would have been two years ago, or at Tora Bora in 2001. So sure, if there is a strangely convenient October surprise and UBL is captured Bush will win in November, but that doesn't mean he is effective in the war on terror he insists somehow in some convoluted way had to involve Iraq.
Your demand that Kerry "defend his service in Vietnam" - which he is now doing by the way, goes to the point of my anger. WHY THE FUCK SHOULD A DECORATED COMBAT VETERAN HAVE TO DEFEND HIMSELF ABOUT IT? Sorry for shouting, but when I hear false attacks on a man's military record and he has to "defend" himself for serving our nation under fire I get a little upset. You don't, but perhaps you are so much more patriotic than me.
My candidate has "debated" on the facts consistently. I've pointed them out time and again. There is no foundation for these false and scurrilous charges, there never was, and the fact that the President hasn't condemned the Swiftvets shows how amoral and debased he really is. Don't give me the "clinton lied" bullshit- Clinton cheated on his wife and didn't want to get caught. Bush is supporting those who would lie to the American people in order to win an election. He deserves reproach, not "the other side did it first" crap - especially when it isn't true anyway.
Ala71: 7 days after 9/11 you saw protestors angry about the war in Afghanistan? Uhhh, - what war was that? Did something involving US troops in Afghanistan happen on 9/18? Your protestors must have been privy to some secret mission nobody else knew, or knows, about.
And in any case, the outcry about the war in Iraq is NOT an outcry about the war in Afghanistan. Sure, you can find people upset about both. You can find a leftie that says we were to blame on 9/11, and I'll find a rightie that says we should nuke all Arab countries for "freedom." I'm not talking about fringe groups (although the right seems to refuse to debate the left, and instead insists on defining the left by looking only to the fringe - hence the earlier charges of "socialism" or "Kerry is worse than Stalin" crap). I'm talking about the large number of Americans who WANT TO FIGHT A WAR ON TERROR, but don't agree with Bush's nonsensical and wrong-headed insistence that invading Iraq was part of the war on terror. Leftist fringe groups like the Army War College, or the Army chief of staff on 9/11, Eric Shinseki. Or me, commie flag-burning anti-american leftie that I am (for those who don't know me yet - that is sarcasm folks).
Cigsmokeman: you are waaaaayyyyy off base.
1. "It was wrong for Moveon.org to host a 30-second never-broadcast web-only immediately-removed and apologized-for spot that compared Bush to Hitler and that Sen. Kerry condemned. It is right for the Swiftvets to engage in a coordinated and well-financed campaign of deception and there is no need for the Bush campaign to condemn it." See, the spot was never fair, and Kerry said so. Right away. And moveon.org pulled the spot. And apologized.
Bush refuses to condemn a group showing repeatedly showing ads in major markets, with an active hate-site on the web, and you say the "left" did the same thing? No. And to compare the two is simply silly. The left did the responsible and honorable thing and apologized for an ad that went too far. Our president, on the other hand, doesn't have the integrity to do the same.
2. Moore? Since when did he become a 527 organization? I must have missed that. And while I thought F9/11 incredibly partisan with a dishonest and selective use of facts to lead the viewer to unjustified conclusions (for instance, that there was something underhanded about the Bush family and Saudi Arabia) that doesn't even compare to the Swiftvets. Moore attacked Bush for his politics. He used facts selectively but didn't lie and didn't make stuff up (whoa - hold on there, before you flame me, the fight over his facts is well known. Moore's facts are true, his use of them is not. Many, many, many right-wingers have tried to discredit his facts without success. They should have focused on how he selectively used them, most notoriously in the first 1/3rd of the movie). Swiftvets out and out lies not about politics but about Kerry's military record. They have made inconsistent and self-contradictory charges. And, unlike Moore who called his movie "not a documentary but an op-ed" they claim they are telling nothing but the truth. They even posed as nonpartisan at first (remember that? Until their financing came to light?).
And to compare a blatantly partisan movie like 9/11, which won't convince anybody not already decided one way or the other (and certainly didn't change your view) to the Swiftvets "facts" in an election campaign is to compare apples to oranges.
I'll give you an example of how they are different - nobody here is defending Moore or F9/11. It was partisan and extreme. LOTS of people, including you and the seemingly level-headed ALa71 are defending the Swiftvets. Many of you by claiming "two wrongs make a right - the left did it first" and at the same time (and inconsistently) claiming "the swiftvets are telling the truth."
You said something about hypocrisy, I believe?
::"It was wrong for Moveon.org to host a 30-second never-broadcast web-only immediately-removed and apologized-for spot that compared Bush to Hitler and that Sen. Kerry condemned. It is right for the Swiftvets to engage in a coordinated and well-financed campaign of deception and there is no need for the Bush campaign to condemn it." See, the spot was never fair, and Kerry said so. Right away. And moveon.org pulled the spot. And apologized.::
The analogy needs to be tighter. MoveOn.org is, itself, a well-financed campaign of hate and deception and Kerry has never seen fit to condemn it. Michael Moore is a well-financed campaign of hate and deception and Kerry has never seen fit to condemn it either. Removing and apologizing for the one ad (which DID get selected as a "finalist" by morons.org) would be analogous to one of the Swiftboat Vets recanting on a claim that none of Kerry's purple hearts had any validity to them at all.
The deeper issue here is that the first blood drawn in the negative campaign battle this season was drawn by the left. Now that the right is returning fire, there is endless screeching and whining and complaining like the little bitches they are, running to mommy.
The Vets themselves are motivated by anger at being called "war criminals" by Kerry. He wouldn't have that collection of negative groupies had he not been so mendacious and back-stabbing of his former comrades in Senate hearings. But you know what? What goes around, comes around.
::Bush refuses to condemn a group showing repeatedly showing ads in major markets, with an active hate-site on the web, and you say the "left" did the same thing?::
The left did worse. They funded a full-length movie, not just an "ad".
::And while I thought F9/11 incredibly partisan with a dishonest and selective use of facts to lead the viewer to unjustified conclusions (for instance, that there was something underhanded about the Bush family and Saudi Arabia) that doesn't even compare to the Swiftvets.::
Because the Swiftboat Vets are attacking your man, that's why it "doesn't even compare" for you. It's typical leftist hypocrisy in action.
::Swiftvets out and out lies not about politics but about Kerry's military record.::
You're in denial the Kerry MADE his military record the centerpiece of the election campaign, and now that that gets called into question, that ISN'T politics? Would that not be, shall we say, *in John Stewart's campy tone of voice while grilling Norm Coleman* a FLIP-FLOP?
::they claim they are telling nothing but the truth.::
It's a they-said, they-said, between pro-Kerry vets and anti-Kerry vets. So far the factual fallout has been embarrassing for Kerry's side, with claims of secret CIA missions, and being in Cambodia under Nixon's orders at a time when Nixon wasn't even President. He's had to change his story on something he told the Senate was "seared into his memory". Well then. I guess it wasn't so "seared" after all. If he recalled inaccurately about that, then maybe he's recalling a lot of other things... "inaccurately".
::They even posed as nonpartisan at first (remember that? Until their financing came to light?).::
How confident are you that Michael Moore has never received any donations from any prominent Democrats?
::nobody here is defending Moore or F9/11.::
Discretion being the better part of valor, I can understand why not, since it's, in fact, indefensible. But that doesn't make it any less of a centerpiece of leftist politics. He DID, after all, sit with Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention. And Tom Daschle thinks he's the greatest activist since Martin Luther King, Jr.
::LOTS of people, including you and the seemingly level-headed ALa71 are defending the Swiftvets.::
All I say is that since MoveOn.org and Michael Moore have had their say, it's only fair and balanced to let the Swiftboat Vets have their say. Why is it the left only wants free speech when it's speech that agrees with their agenda? If the S. Vets are lying, then shame on them, but that has yet to be established, at all.
::Many of you by claiming "two wrongs make a right - the left did it first"::
It's a less fallacious position than to say two wrongs are still right so long as it's OUR side doing them, as the left is wont to proclaim.
The goal here is consistency and balance in the discourse, and the left will have none of it.
::You said something about hypocrisy, I believe?::
Yes, I did, and I'm still saying it. The left is a bunch of hypocrites. Free speech only when it's their speech. That's no way to sway libertarian types to their side, by the way.
TWD- When Paul O'Neill wrote a book bashing the President and then bashed the President in an interview...how did Bush respond?
Did he sue to have the book stopped? Did he demand that O'Neill's publishers stop the book from being released?
No.
He said, when asked, that Paul O'Neill served his country honorably. As a result, O'Neill said he was sorry that he had said bad things about his former boss.
When Michael Moore released a film bashing the President and his policies without endorsing Kerry at all in the film ....how did Bush respond?
Did he try to stop the film from being released? Did he demand Kerry to denounce it? Did he sue theatres from showing it?
No. I honestly don't recall the President mentioning it at all except to say that he has not seen it.
When the Dixie Chicks ridiculed our President in another country, did the President denounce them? Did he demand an apology? Did he insist that their CD not be sold in the US?
No.
When told about what was said at the concert, he simply stated that they had every right to say what they said as there is still freedom of speech in this country.
But when the Swiftboat Veterans release a book bashing John Kerry's actions during and after Vietnam they have written without mentioning Bush or endorsing him, the Kerry campaign asks their supporters to write letters to publishers and books stores telling them, no demanding them, NOT to release the book or sell it.
When the Swiftboat Veterans release a TV ad questioning John Kerry's actions in Vietnam without mentioning or endorsing President Bush, they are sued to stop the ad from being seen. And they are threatened and treated rudely on TV news shows.
When the Swiftboats Vets release a second ad stating their personal experiences as POW's in Vietnam without mentioning Bush or endorsing Bush, the Kerry campaign files a complaint with the FEC to stop the ad from being seen.
Seems to me that John Kerry really REALLY does not want Americans to see those ads.
I don't blame him as they are devistating. Seeing former POWs stating how they were tortured for not saying all the things that John Kerry did say is heartbreaking....that is FACT.
The Swiftboat veterans are not "so-called veterans". One of them is a rear admiral. The MSM can try to smear them all they want(after ignoring the story for almost 2 weeks...), but the fact remains that Kerry smeared them already back in 1970-1978.
You only have your candidate to blame........
I also read that Village Voice article....devistating again!
I wrote to John McCain about it as well. I cannot believe that he is honestly supporting John Kerry after knowing all that this man has done to Vietnam Vets and POW/MIA's after he returned home.
The POW/MIA cover-up is enough of a scandal to keep Kerry out of the Oval Office alone....but then you pile up all the Hanoi Jane stuff and the VVAW stuff and you know he cannot be elected into office EVER.
To still support this man after all you know about what he has said and done is to live with your head purposefully buried in the sand while insisting that it all can't be true. It is true.
These Vietnam Vets have every right to come out and say what they are saying. They shed their blood over in Vietnam too. John Kerry bashed them for political gain and now they want to reveal that this man isn't the hero he claims to be by telling us, the American people, the TRUTH about John Kerry.
I admire them.
Imagine if there were 250 vets lined up bashing Bush's record in the TANG. It would be on every newspaper and news story on TV for the last month.
The MSM did their investigation into Bush's record. Many books have been written about Bush by some of the best journalists in the country. And still, they came up with no scandal regarding Bush's 6 year service in the TANG. Believe me, if there was a scandal...Bob Woodward would have found it immediately.
These scandals about Kerry are real. They will not go away. I think Kerry thought no one would actually dare to question his Vietnam record or his actions afterward. He was very wrong.....
But remember that patriotism, according to the libs, is to question those in elected office.
TWD: That was my point...7 days after 9/11 they were saying we can't go in...do nothing -keep the women in Buquas (however that is spelled -I really don't care to know...I'll call it the sexist pig uniform) don't punish those who have done this horrific thing...
I wouldn't go so far as to say "a vote for John Kerry is a vote for al-Qaeda"; nor would I associate Kerry with the protesters who said not to invade Afghanistan (7 days after 9/11).
In Iraq policy I think Kerry will provide the world with tediously more of the same because he has no clue to go about it in any better sort of a way. In fact, when it comes to Iraq, a Kerry victory might actually amount to success there because as fanatically devoted to Kerry as the mainstream media is, it's quite possible that they will marshall their forces into a well-oiled pro-American propaganda machine, and generally beat the drums of war the way they did when we were bombing innocent civilians (rather indiscriminately) in Serbia. Innocent Iraqi civilians will have MUCH to fear from John Kerry (since he also proudly proclaims to be a war criminal), but the U.S. might actually fare better on that front.
In the larger scope of the war against al-Qaeda (I still bristle at calling it the "War on Terror" because you can't fight a war against an emotion any better than you can against terrorISM, which is a TACTIC), I think that may be where Kerry will expose us to greater danger. If al-Qaeda launches a new and devastating attack from Iran, and France and Germany tell us not to invade Iran, what will Kerry do? You're damn right: not a damn thing. He will make us Chirac's puppet, and our security will be at the mercy of snooty Eurotrash who would just as soon see America burn to the ground. Sleep soundly after Kerry's sworn in. I'll be in France--where at least they'll still be willing to defend themselves if attacked.
LOL. I'll continue the debate later, I don't feel like it tonight.
I heard all blogging from Iraq has been stopped. We'll see if and when it continues, but opsec is real, important, and must be honored. And the morons criticizing "censorship" and declaring 1st Amendment rights on CBFTW's site can kiss my ass. Censorship is OF COURSE done in a combat zone, and 1st Amd rights are not violated by censorship restrictions in a combat zone, which the Supreme Court has upheld repeatedly. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded movie theater for the same reason - innocent people get hurt.
Pray for CB.
artbyruth - McCain was part of the whole POW/MIA thing...that's why many vets don't like him...I am not saying that I know anything about the details of this --just that McCain was part of that Vietnam natralization bill & online there are tons of POW/MIA families that feel betrayed by him and have devoted entire websites to it.
Redleg, the reason you have to defend the USAF is because if the Kosovo intervention (where no US lives were lost) is successful it makes it harder to attack Gen. Clark, a democrat (typical leftie hippie sterotype smashed). Thus the facts get twisted and now the Kosovo and Bosnia missions were all F'ed up. But.... the Iraq mission is a smashing success and no mistakes were made. Mission accomplished and all that.
Gen. Clarke isn't a left-wing hippie...he was a Republican 'til like 15 seconds before Clinton called and told him that he was running for President.
Redleg and TWD, you're making my point for me, and fabulously I might add. When the left-leaning media gets it in their head that a certain campaign is a "noble cause" (usually because a DEMOCRAT is president at the time it began), cluster bombs dropping from B-52s are characterized as "dropping where they were aimed", and collateral damage is dismissed with "well war is messy".
And when those same media get it into their heads that a certain war is a crime against all that is human and good in the universe (usually because a REPUBLICAN is president at the time it began, or in Nixon's case, at the time it was being fought), then every soldier is a "war criminal" (as Kerry stated so eloquenty in 1971), every bomb is a shotgun blast aimed at babies, and no volume of maudlin epithets about the callous disregard for human life within White House circles, is ever enough.
But what's amusing is to see that moronic mediocre media mass do a 180 on itself, turn on a dime, and go from scolding to praise: Afghanistan was always a just war, and we have always supported the war in Afghanistan (chillingly reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth crooning on about how "Eurasia is our friend; we have always been allied with Eurasia!")
How do those New York Times guys perform such flip-flops without throwing out your back? And how do you manage not to express awe over the accomplishment of your fellow travellers? Is it modesty, or envy, I wonder?
Wow, Vrangel, you even used the term "fellow travelers." How quaint. Is the term "pinko" next? Sure, it doesn't really tie in with the War on Terror but it must sure bring back the good old days of McCarthyism.
Democrats are your fellow citizens, Vrangel. They are patriotic and loyal to the Constitution and the United States of America. Why do you insist that they are not? Why in your world must those who belong to a different political party from you, who support a different candidate for president, be the enemy? Be less loyal? Be "fellow travelers?"
Kerry never said all soldiers were "war criminals" as I've stated time and again. He did say some were though. He said that crimes were taking place, that the US was choosing expediency over what was right, that our nation was taking the easy wrong over the hard right. He demanded our leaders do what was right. And he spoke truth (how else do you explain a My Lai, and the subsequent cover-up?). He spoke out because the actions of a few don't shame the entire military unless the military condones it - and that was what was happening. By not prosecuting war criminals the govt was shaming all soldiers, all Americans. Kerry's speaking out and demanding that right be done wasn't what was shameful. It was what was right.
Abu Ghraib - the right "Rush"es in with "fraternity prank" talk and "well, they're just terrorists anyway" and "Saddam was worse." The Army, on the other hand, investigates, prosecutes, and despite the efforts of Rumsfeld and the current administration, appoints 2 and 3-star generals to investigate - and those investigations point to higher ranks involved, and the Army as an institution is out to get them and punish them for shaming the uniform come hell or high water. By doing so the Army separates itself from those who would shame the Army colors. But perhaps Gen. Taguba is a "traitor" too for daring to suggest that crimes took place. After all, the Ministry of Truth has declared that the mission was accomplished, that no mistakes were made, and the war was never about WMDs anyway. What about the soldier, an lowly E-4 Specialist, that stepped forward to declare that abuse of prisoners was wrong and must stop? Was he loyal and true to our ideals by demanding that the Army live up to its declared values, or was he a traitor - like Kerry - for speaking out and "giving aid and comfort" to our current enemies? After all, in the Islamic world the Abu Ghraib scandal has hurt us and if he had just shut up then it wouldn't have come to light.
But he didn't shut up, and that is because he was true to the Army values of courage - moral courage, and loyalty - to the ideals of our Constitution, and he took the hard right over the easy wrong. We need not sell out in order to defend our Constitution. Selling out and doing wrong destroys us rather than protects us.
Kerry spoke out - and he was right. Twisting his testimony into a damnation of all soldiers as war criminals is obscene. It was not what happened.
Again I ask those not already blinded by partisanship to read or watch the entire 1971 Senate Testimony. Kerry's love for his nation and his respect for his fellow warriors shines through, as well as his disgust with leaders who would exploit them for political purposes and not punish the criminals whose behavior shamed them. It was one of the greatest speeches in Senate history and deserves acclaim, not apologies.
But 30-second sound bites seem more effective today, especially scandalous ones. Most voters will vote for the latest American Idol rather than a leader who does the right thing when it isn't the popular thing to do. They won't investigate and learn the truth for themselves. And any explanation that isn't simple or less than 10-words long will fail.
Lies can win an election but they don't do our democracy justice. It threatens to overwhelm our great experiment in self-government. If our Republic fails we have only ourselves to blame. I fear we will cheer the new Ceasar as he crosses the Rubicon, overthrowing the republic in the name of safety while publicly proclaiming his love for it.
So you cheer Bush and proudly proclaim that the Swiftvets have damaged Kerry. You pat yourselves on the back for defending "America." And you destroy our system from within because you apparently never understood what this grand experiment in democracy was all about. It isn't about winning. It is about dissent, and disagreement, and the search for truth.
I'm not suggesting that your being Republicans is what is damaging to our nation. I'm suggesting the methods being employed are - and no Michael Moore and his false insinuations aren't the same thing at all. If you can't see the difference then it is simply because you don't want to see.
Ooops!!! Cigsmokman, NOT Vrangel.
And Vrangel, I envy you. I wish I could play Doom3. :(
I do have Halo on Xbox though, and am counting the days down to Halo2.
Did the geek factor just go up or what?
Ooops!!! Cigsmokman, NOT Vrangel.
And Vrangel, I envy you. I wish I could play Doom3. :(
I do have Halo on Xbox though, and am counting the days down to Halo2.
Did the geek factor just go up or what?
Ooops!!! Cigsmokman, NOT Vrangel.
And Vrangel, I envy you. I wish I could play Doom3. :(
I do have Halo on Xbox though, and am counting the days down to Halo2.
Did the geek factor just go up or what?
Ooops!!! Cigsmokman, NOT Vrangel.
And Vrangel, I envy you. I wish I could play Doom3. :(
I do have Halo on Xbox though, and am counting the days down to Halo2.
Did the geek factor just go up or what?
Ooops!!! Cigsmokman, NOT Vrangel.
And Vrangel, I envy you. I wish I could play Doom3. :(
I do have Halo on Xbox though, and am counting the days down to Halo2.
Did the geek factor just go up or what?
My friend, your piece on "more on how to be a Republican" leaves out the primary technique to crush a candidate years before he becomes one:
Here's the strategy: propose a bill that says Jesus is our nation's lord and savior, abortion must be banned even if the mother is dead, taxes on the top 1% of wealthiest Americans should be cut entirely and shifted to the poorest 20%, and, oh, say, "we in Congress support our troops." Conduct the voting as a single ombnibus bill.
Repropose the bill after it gets shot down about 20 times.
Years later, when a distinguished Senator runs for President, attack that lefty commie godless whore because he voted against a declaration supporting our troops. 21 times!
::you even used the term "fellow travelers." How quaint. Is the term "pinko" next? Sure, it doesn't really tie in with the War on Terror but it must sure bring back the good old days of McCarthyism.::
Poputchik simply signifies like-minded people, not necessarily like-minded Communist people. You really do need to learn to let the cold war GO. Marxist-Leninism lost, and is gone, but Ted Kennedy's Fabianism is still sleep-walking its way into the wallets of the middle class, so you do have that to cheer about.
::Democrats are your fellow citizens, (Vrangel--later adjusted to Cigman). They are patriotic and loyal to the Constitution and the United States of America. Why do you insist that they are not?::
Why do you insist that I insist that? Just because I think their policies are destructive, doesn't mean I think they INTEND to destroy the nation. It's just too much engine block, not enough fuel, is all. Too much government, not enough profit motive. They need to be kept more in balance than what would satisfy Tom Daschle.
::Kerry never said all soldiers were "war criminals"::
Apr 1971: "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals." William Fullbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee
All, thousands... who's counting, right?
::Abu Ghraib::
Straw man, much? I'm not defending Abu Ghraib, at all.
::They won't investigate and learn the truth for themselves.::
Not without Kerry suing them, anyway.
::I fear we will cheer the new Ceasar as he crosses the Rubicon, overthrowing the republic in the name of safety while publicly proclaiming his love for it.::
All poetic and lovely, but what were the particular abuses of the Constitution you're accusing Kerry's opponent with, again? Or are you yourself just smitten with soundbytes and not particularly interested with facts?
::It is about dissent, and disagreement, and the search for truth.::
Yet another array of activities Kerry won't allow.
::I'm not suggesting that your being Republicans is what is damaging to our nation.::
You assume everyone who doesn't like Kerry is a Republican?
::no Michael Moore and his false insinuations aren't the same thing at all.::
Because he's in line with your political agenda. That conveniently makes him "different". His 1st Amendment rights are inviolable, but if you're a Swiftboat Veteran you give up those rights by the mere act of piping up about the would-be Emporer's new medals (retrieved from the white house lawn).
Cigsmokman: ::Kerry never said all soldiers were "war criminals"::
Apr 1971: "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals." William Fullbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee
All, thousands... who's counting, right?
READ IT AGAIN, and slowly. Sound it out. You can do it. Now listen to what you missed: "the men who ordered this are war criminals."
Not all, not thousands, not the soldiers who participated (as did Kerry) but the "men who ordered this."
Free fire zones and H&I fire are violations of the Geneva Convention. Kerry spoke the truth. You call it a betrayal that he spoke. I call it a betrayal that high-ranking govt officials decided to forego what we stand for regardless of the reasons and admire those who stood up for what is right.
As for your whiny "liberals aren't defending the Swiftvets right to free speech" line which the right-wing is repeating constantly, they miss it again (much like the line about "the men who ordered this" you miss the BIG PICTURE." The swiftvets have the right to say whatever they want. They can accuse Kerry of being a coward, which they have done. They can accuse him of being a liar, which they have done. Slander and libel are not protected, so they are careful to crouch their lies in the form of unverifiable accounts or as opinion (which shows they aren't just a group of veterans that got together, as ALa71 always insists, but that they are a well-funded machine with top legal advice). So they can say whatever the fuck they want.
Here's the point, my slow-reading friend: Having the right to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Your candidate refuses to condemn the underhanded and slimy tactics of the Swiftvets, so your candidate is underhanded and slimy.
hehe, everyone's ganging up on you, TWD, on your own blog, no less. Who'd have thought your blog would attract all these folks taht disagree with you. All your comments on other blogs (i.e. CB's) have been so great that everyone comes on down here even though they know they'd disagree with ya.
Man oh man, TWD's got brass cajones.
Oh, wow, I didn't know you old folks played videogames. ;) I'm waiting for Halo2, too. (I must have beat Halo a billion times; I'm just getting tired of everyone calling the Master Chief sir...)But mostly I'm wating for Half-life 2. I was looking at doom3 but those folks at id are just ripping me off by charging $54. I'll wait til it gets on sale.
Hah! I out-geeked you all.
Thanks Spacecadetzoom. You win the geeklympics.
As for those that disagree with me, I already know what I think. I'm interested in what people think who don't necessarily agree with me.
Post a Comment