Bush adviser linked to Swift boat ad by appearing in the ad

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
but the image some of you guys want to paint of him as a gung-ho, Rambo-esque, killing machine with nothing but the thought of fighting for his beloved homeland on his mind and without a selfless bone in his body is just a bit of a stretch.

When did we ever say that? We just said his record was better then W's. And that is one plus for Kerry. Why are you over reacting to that?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: rextilleon
Amazing thing is that the Bush supporters always claim as their last bastion of defense that Bush had no knowledge of this or that. Whatever happened to The Buck Stops Here! This mean-spirited attack on Kerry really shows how far they will go to get their guy re-elected. I'm afraid this country is in deep trouble.

"The buck stops nowhere" is Bush's legacy from the Great Prevaricator, and from his daddy the former CIA head, who were both "out-of-the-loop" as a retired Admiral and a Marine Lieutenant Colonel supposedly ran U.S. foreign poilicy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
but the image some of you guys want to paint of him as a gung-ho, Rambo-esque, killing machine with nothing but the thought of fighting for his beloved homeland on his mind and without a selfless bone in his body is just a bit of a stretch.

When did we ever say that? We just said his record was better then W's. And that is one plus for Kerry. Why are you over reacting to that?

Hint: Neocon desperation

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The fact that he came from a priveldged background, could have avoided Vietnam altogether, and still went speaks volumes about his courage and bravery. The man could have died and ended his life short. He realized after he came back, that what he was sent to Vietnam for was not worth dying for and that is why he protested. I fail to see anything "un-American" in that, in fact, I applaud him for his courage to stand up and protest the war.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
My point is that so far, there are only 2 facts that I see from the Pro-Kerry camp as to why he'd make a good President:

1) He's not Bush.
2) He served in Vietnam

The only good reason to vote for Bush is Kerry. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are the best reasons to vote for Kerry.

 

[Hecubus2000]

The Democrats don't have to do anything and they certainly haven't lied, cheated, nor stolen.

This has to be one of the most funniest things i've read in a long time. What the hell kind of planet do you live on? Talking about being brainwashed. I thought the republicans were bad, but this one has to take the cake. If you honestly believe this you are a first class sucker. Just remember, here on Earth all politicians lie, cheat, and steal. But hey, it's a free country believe what you want.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
but the image some of you guys want to paint of him as a gung-ho, Rambo-esque, killing machine with nothing but the thought of fighting for his beloved homeland on his mind and without a selfless bone in his body is just a bit of a stretch.

When did we ever say that? We just said his record was better then W's. And that is one plus for Kerry. Why are you over reacting to that?

I don't think that I'm over-reacting to anything. I'm just pointing out that > 90% of the media stories, as well as the topics in here, are about Kerry's war record. I personally don't care. I've said in every single reply that "I AGREE THAT KERRY'S WAR RECORD IS MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN BUSH'S." But I DON'T think that that is simply enough to make me vote for him. Simple as that. But for some reason, that's almost all that's being batting around here (obviously, not all of you pro-Kerry guys do this, but a majority of you do.) A lot of arguments go like this:

Bush started a "wrong" war => Kerry served in Vietnam.
Bush caters to the rich neocons => Kerry served in Vietnam.
Bush has ruined the economy => Kerry served in Vietnam.
Bush runs a smear campaign => Kerry served in Vietnam.
Bush "talks" to God => Kerry served in Vietnam.

I just feel like if that's all the guy has to offer, then that's not that impressive, IMO. And I personally find it hilarious that I can be accused of 'over-reacting' when so many here get their panties in a knot talking about some "great, evil Neocon scheme to take over the world."

 

[Genx87]

Same tactics used by the GOP attack ad against Kerry. Take stuff out of context to twist and distort the truth.

Yes because we all know the demos could never do something like this lol

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
The only good reason to vote for Bush is Kerry. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are the best reasons to vote for Kerry.

I almost agree with you. I'd just change that last line from "the best reasons to vote for Kerry" to "the best reasons to vote against Bush." Sadly, a great majority of the 3rd party candidates are vastly more qualified that either of the Rep/Dem candidates..

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
but the image some of you guys want to paint of him as a gung-ho, Rambo-esque, killing machine with nothing but the thought of fighting for his beloved homeland on his mind and without a selfless bone in his body is just a bit of a stretch.

When did we ever say that? We just said his record was better then W's. And that is one plus for Kerry. Why are you over reacting to that?

I don't think that I'm over-reacting to anything. I'm just pointing out that > 90% of the media stories, as well as the topics in here, are about Kerry's war record. I personally don't care. I've said in every single reply that "I AGREE THAT KERRY'S WAR RECORD IS MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN BUSH'S." But I DON'T think that that is simply enough to make me vote for him. Simple as that. But for some reason, that's almost all that's being batting around here (obviously, not all of you pro-Kerry guys do this, but a majority of you do.) A lot of arguments go like this:

Bush started a "wrong" war => Kerry served in Vietnam.
Bush caters to the rich neocons => Kerry served in Vietnam.
Bush has ruined the economy => Kerry served in Vietnam.
Bush runs a smear campaign => Kerry served in Vietnam.
Bush "talks" to God => Kerry served in Vietnam.

I just feel like if that's all the guy has to offer, then that's not that impressive, IMO. And I personally find it hilarious that I can be accused of 'over-reacting' when so many here get their panties in a knot talking about some "great, evil Neocon scheme to take over the world."

You forgot the one that goes like this:

Kerry accused of lying about war record => Dems defend him

That one is getting the most talk around here right now and is started by the Conservatives. Look, a lot of the libs go off the deep end around here too. Doesn't mean you aren't over reacting. Just means there's a lot of other high strung people around here.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I almost agree with you. I'd just change that last line from "the best reasons to vote for Kerry" to "the best reasons to vote against Bush." Sadly, a great majority of the 3rd party candidates are vastly more qualified that either of the Rep/Dem candidates..

I stand corrected.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I almost agree with you. I'd just change that last line from "the best reasons to vote for Kerry" to "the best reasons to vote against Bush." Sadly, a great majority of the 3rd party candidates are vastly more qualified that either of the Rep/Dem candidates..

I stand corrected.

:thumbsup: And judging by your signature, I bet you would be interested in the Libertarian Party. *beckons you over and hands you a pamphlet*

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
:thumbsup: And judging by your signature, I bet you would be interested in the Libertarian Party. *beckons you over and hands you a pamphlet*

Too fiscally conservative for the Dems, too socially progressive for the Reps and too contrary to join the Libertarians. I vote the person, never the party.

 

[Todd33]

Except the democrats are the fiscal conservatives now. Who balanced the budget? Who squandered the surplus?

 

[Mathlete]

Originally posted by: DashRiprock
So what? Same as Michael Moore being embraced by the entire Democratic establishment. Nearly all of Democratic Washington came to the D.C. premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11. The last two Democratic presidents have given him their seal of approval: When Bill Clinton was asked what he thought of The Film, he replied, "I think every American ought to see it." After his convention speech, Jimmy Carter sat with Moore. I don't see any past or present Republican Presidents endorsing the Swift Boat Vets Against Kerry org. I haven't heard Kerry publically telling Michael Moore to back off. So what? Kerry can't take the heat.

Didn't see any of those people in the movie.

The issue here is not that people aggree/disaggree with the ads. The issue is that according to campaign finance reform, 527 groups are to have nto connection to the candidate.

And....well....errrr...."I didn't know he was on my staff," is not going to work here.

OWNED

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Too fiscally conservative for the Dems, too socially progressive for the Reps and too contrary to join the Libertarians. I vote the person, never the party.

Obviously, you should consider the person over the party lines, but an ideal candidate will represent his party because he subscribes to the same overall vision as the party.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Except the democrats are the fiscal conservatives now. Who balanced the budget? Who squandered the surplus?

Mea Culpa. Too brief and glib a reply. The Reps are as bad at pork as the Dems ever were, but the largest of their excesses, welfare for the defense industry, at least has some constitutional basis. The Dems are too eager to stretch the "general welfare" clause out of any recognisable shape with funding for any whim that might improve "quality of life" (NEA, public broadcasting, etc).

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Obviously, you should consider the person over the party lines, but an ideal candidate will represent his party because he subscribes to the same overall vision as the party.

A good principle, but in a two-party system you will have many candidates joining a political party with which they really have limited shared interests. I have voted at different times for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists and even one avowed Communist (who didn't win).

We're well off topic here. Any further discussion should be subject of a different thread.

 

[piasabird]

So what, dont you beleive in Freedom of Speech? I thought freedom of speech was a core Democratic Beleif. I guess Democrats beleive in Sensorship, but only when it suits the democratic party.

Ban Michael Moore's movie why dont you?

What about all those people that kept trying to claim Bush Was AWOL from his National Guard Unit? I suppose some of them might have worked for Kerry . . . .