Bush's Sleeper Cells

[Insane3D]

First it was the liberal media with the liberal agenda, then it was the liberal forum, now we have a grand liberal moderators scheme as well! Oh the horror!!

OMG!!! OH NO! AIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! NOOOOOO!O!OO!O!!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

Still dancing CkG? I think you need a tophat, tails, and a cane, maybe some spats to go with it all...

"Jhhhnn - It's as clear as it could possibly be. Conjur is presenting a false choice so I seperated it into seperate issues so the premise and context would be correct for future reference."

In other words, you're contending that the attacks referenced, particularly by the SBVFT, aren't smears at all... and that you're not denouncing them for that reason... w/o actually saying so, of course... but that, of course, you would denounce any you felt were smears... Kinda like the dubya dance on the subject...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Still dancing CkG? I think you need a tophat, tails, and a cane, maybe some spats to go with it all...

"Jhhhnn - It's as clear as it could possibly be. Conjur is presenting a false choice so I seperated it into seperate issues so the premise and context would be correct for future reference."

In other words, you're contending that the attacks referenced, particularly by the SBVFT, aren't smears at all... and that you're not denouncing them for that reason... w/o actually saying so, of course... but that, of course, you would denounce any you felt were smears... Kinda like the dubya dance on the subject...

:roll: No, you're starting with the premise that Bush is orchestrating the SBVFT ads. So again, I don't like smears from either side and I am supporting Bush. Take it or leave it - that is the full answer, sorry it doesn't fit conjur's and your little attempt at creating false impressions.

CsG

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, I get it- Just because Rove, Perry, O'Neill and Corsi have long standing relationships and records for Republican dirty tricks, and that various Bush campaign attorneys and hangers-on have worked with the SBVFT, doesn't mean there's a connection...

Which would mean that you, Bush and others would be quick to denounce their smears, if they're not connected... But you're not...

So basically, what you're saying is that there's no connection, and that they're not smears, but you're opposed to smears...

Better sprinkle a little somethin' on that stage, before you fall and break your ass...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Oh, I get it- Just because Rove, Perry, O'Neill and Corsi have long standing relationships and records for Republican dirty tricks, and that various Bush campaign attorneys and hangers-on have worked with the SBVFT, doesn't mean there's a connection...

Which would mean that you, Bush and others would be quick to denounce their smears, if they're not connected... But you're not...

So basically, what you're saying is that there's no connection, and that they're not smears, but you're opposed to smears...

Better sprinkle a little somethin' on that stage, before you fall and break your ass...

Nice try but those are your words and ASSumptions - not mine. link/connection != orchestration/collaboration. You move-on.org and ACT people really don't have room to make these sorts of accusations either lest the questioning eye refocuses on you.

My position is solid and the answers true, unfortunately the question was dishonest in it's premise.

CsG

 

[DealMonkey]

Well Cad, how about just denouncing the specific SBV4T smear irrespective of how it may or may not be connected to the Bush/Cheney camp? I note that Bush had a problem doing that too, but really it's no big deal.

 

[Jhhnn]

He's not about to, DealMonkey. It's the whole point that he, Bush and all of the rest are dancing around...

Funny how guys who supported the whole "links to Al Qaeda" and "sought to obtain uranium from Africa" bit are now trying to deny the obvious wrt the SBVFT- that they're hooked straight into the Bush Campaign, and that it's a smear...

What? ol' Bob Perry and the swiftboat vets just struck out on their own, got the campaign's lawyers to advise them, and never even mentioned it to Perry's old chum, Karl Rove? And the media just picked it up and ran with it, giving them hundreds of hours of free coverage...

Yeh, right, when pigs fly...

 

[gutharius]

I used to be for the 527's and allowing them to voice their message, whether it be deomcratic or republican. But now, after these messages that have been proven to be false, based on the veterans' own admissions, I am regretting thinking or feeling this may be a good thing. Because obviously at the time I was thinking we lived in a moral and civil society where we followed morals and ethics, and we didn't blindly believe what we see on the TV. I admit I am nieve for thinking this. I was nieve for believing that when you say something it NEEDS to be and MUST be based on fact. As such I feel the opportunity to goto any means necessary to ruin and defame a candidate has taken shape in the aims of 527 ads. Whether this has been used to corrupt means or not I cannot say. Why? Because I am a Kerry supporter in a marginalized state (Texas) which is not worth Kerry's campaigning for obvious reasons. So because of this I have not seen or experienced the full spin cycle brain washing advertising blitzkreig going on in major battleground states. I have only paid attention to what i want to hear and see only because the mere sight or sound of Bush speaking or advocating his version of America makes me ill and brings flashes of Hitler, Fascism and Nazi Death camps to mind. For the record I present the definition of Fascism, which I found very similar to bushies last 4 years as president. Of course, no one in the administration would admit this and not that it is even directly expressed, because it is my belief most of this goes on in the background behind what the public eye can see and is shown.

fas·cism ( P )
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

If you guys haven't realized by now, CAD won't directly answer any of your questions. I think partly because he enjoys seeing half the board getting their panties in a twist (maybe he enjoys all the attention?), and partly because he doesn't want to appear to have "given in" to any of the left's demands.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Jhhhnn - It's as clear as it could possibly be. Conjur is presenting a false choice so I seperated it into seperate issues so the premise and context would be correct for future reference.

CsG

No. I did NOT present a false choice.

I'm talking about the Bush campaign and its smear tactics, not the SBVFT group, not MoveOn, not anything other than the Bush campaign itself.

Shall I trot out the factcheck.org proof? I don't think I need to.

So, again, CsG, answer simply with either yes or no.


Do you support the Bush campaign smear tactics?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well Cad, how about just denouncing the specific SBV4T smear irrespective of how it may or may not be connected to the Bush/Cheney camp? I note that Bush had a problem doing that too, but really it's no big deal.

That question is for the Swift boat thread but I'll answer it here. Do I like the fact that these sorts of groups can pull this off? No, not really. Do they have a right to voice their opinion? Yes they do. My take is and has been for quite some time, that these 527 groups should be held more accountable - both in their money and statements. You won't get me to denounce the whole Swift boat group - just as most all of you won't denounce ACT or Move-on. The swift boat guys bring up one portion of kerry's history and that is within reason - especially because of kerry's actions AFTER his four month tour. What I don't like specifically about the swift boat guys is how they are going about bringing this all up. If they have a problem with what kerry said or did - talk about that. This question of his injuries doesn't mean a damn thing because it's done and over and isn't going to change. Kerry still has his medals(but not his ribbons) and these guys won't change that. IMO they should hammer him on what he did afterwards -because by most accounts that is what has most of them pissed off about kerry.
So again, the group has a right to exist and I won't totally denounce them because they do have a right to bring up their issues with kerry - but that doesn't mean I encourage/support some of their tactics or line of accusation.

Jhhnn - There is no dancing - I answered the question in the most honest way possible. It's just too bad the question wasn't posed honestly so it was possible to give an honest "yes"/"no" answer.

Sudheertrollanne - If conjur would have presented an honest question then I would have answered with a yes/no- but he chose to play a little game. It's not hard to spot the left's games and this one was like a blinking neon sign. Now why don't you run along like a good little "me too" troll and have a

CsG

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: alchemize
<blockquote>quote:
<hr>Standing next to Bush on the stage was a veteran who went right at McCain, questioning his Vietnam service while Bush remained silent.<hr></blockquote><BR>I keep hearing about this - does anyone have transcript/quotes? Because my neocon site told me that he was criticizing McCain's voting record in relation to the miliary, not his vietnam service.

??

??? Ought to be simple right?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well Cad, how about just denouncing the specific SBV4T smear irrespective of how it may or may not be connected to the Bush/Cheney camp? I note that Bush had a problem doing that too, but really it's no big deal.

That question is for the Swift boat thread but I'll answer it here. Do I like the fact that these sorts of groups can pull this off? No, not really. Do they have a right to voice their opinion? Yes they do. My take is and has been for quite some time, that these 527 groups should be held more accountable - both in their money and statements. You won't get me to denounce the whole Swift boat group - just as most all of you won't denounce ACT or Move-on. The swift boat guys bring up one portion of kerry's history and that is within reason - especially because of kerry's actions AFTER his four month tour. What I don't like specifically about the swift boat guys is how they are going about bringing this all up. If they have a problem with what kerry said or did - talk about that. This question of his injuries doesn't mean a damn thing because it's done and over and isn't going to change. Kerry still has his medals(but not his ribbons) and these guys won't change that. IMO they should hammer him on what he did afterwards -because by most accounts that is what has most of them pissed off about kerry.
So again, the group has a right to exist and I won't totally denounce them because they do have a right to bring up their issues with kerry - but that doesn't mean I encourage/support some of their tactics or line of accusation.

Jhhnn - There is no dancing - I answered the question in the most honest way possible. It's just too bad the question wasn't posed honestly so it was possible to give an honest "yes"/"no" answer.

Sudheertrollanne - If conjur would have presented an honest question then I would have answered with a yes/no- but he chose to play a little game. It's not hard to spot the left's games and this one was like a blinking neon sign. Now why don't you run along like a good little "me too" troll and have a

CsG

Now how hard was that CAD? That's all anyone was asking you to do, and yet you continue to make a huge scene as if we are pulling teeth here. IMHO your actions are quite childish.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Jhhhnn - It's as clear as it could possibly be. Conjur is presenting a false choice so I seperated it into seperate issues so the premise and context would be correct for future reference.

CsG

No. I did NOT present a false choice.

I'm talking about the Bush campaign and its smear tactics, not the SBVFT group, not MoveOn, not anything other than the Bush campaign itself.

Shall I trot out the factcheck.org proof? I don't think I need to.

So, again, CsG, answer simply with either yes or no.


Do you support the Bush campaign smear tactics?

Ah, so now it's not about the swiftboat guys...

What exactly are you claiming are "smears"? Where is the line that defines "smear"? Is a "smear" something like kerry making an issue of Bush's Guard service? Is that a "smear"? You need to draw the line of what constitutes a "smear" because at this point it's a sliding scale based on one's opinion.

You say you are a Republican, so do you support the Republican party and Republicans? Remember your "with us or against us" stance presented alonside your question to me

CsG

 

[conjur]

Again, CsG, answer with YES or NO.


Do you support the Bush campaign's smear tactics?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Now how hard was that CAD? That's all anyone was asking you to do, and yet you continue to make a huge scene as if we are pulling teeth here. IMHO your actions are quite childish.

Well it looks like your little "me too" troll routine didn't work out this time. conjur now claims he wasn't talking about the swiftboat guys. Also, DM presented a consice question without loading it(too much) and I answered it honestly just like I did with conjur's loaded one.
Now again so you might understand this time. I wasn't making a big issue of it - you and the others were. I answered the question and you guys didn't like me answering it honestly. If you want an honest answer you have to present an honest question.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Again, CsG, answer with YES or NO.


Do you support the Bush campaign's smear tactics?

I've already answered. I don't like "smears" and I am supporting Bush for President. Now if you'll kindly draw the line of what YOU think constitutes a "smear", I'll answer from there.

Now for once, please present a question that can be answered honestly with a yes/no, conjur. YOU asked the purposely loaded question - you need to define what a "smear" is.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur
Again, CsG, answer with YES or NO.


Do you support the Bush campaign's smear tactics?

A one-word response is all I'm asking for, CsG.

Why is that so hard for you?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur
Again, CsG, answer with YES or NO.


Do you support the Bush campaign's smear tactics?

A one-word response is all I'm asking for, CsG.

Why is that so hard for you?

An honest/defined question is all I'm asking for conjur.

Why is that so hard for you?

*******
I've answered your question honestly, but if you want a yes/no to your loaded question then "smear" must be defined because if it isn't - it'll just be another sliding scale argument. Now please, just define your question and I'll answer it.

Oh, and once you define it so I can answer honestly - I'll be waiting for your answer on my question too

CsG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur
Again, CsG, answer with YES or NO.

Do you support the Bush campaign's smear tactics?

A one-word response is all I'm asking for, CsG.

Why is that so hard for you?

I'm just guessing here, but I imagine the problem is that by answering your question as it is now, Cad would in effect be admitting that Bush is running a smear campaign. Which, of course Cad doesn't believe is actually happening. Whether he answers "yes" or "no" it doesn't matter, it still has the unintended effect I just described.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur
Again, CsG, answer with YES or NO.


Do you support the Bush campaign's smear tactics?

A one-word response is all I'm asking for, CsG.

Why is that so hard for you?

An honest/defined question is all I'm asking for conjur.

Why is that so hard for you?

*******
I've answered your question honestly, but if you want a yes/no to your loaded question then "smear" must be defined because if it isn't - it'll just be another sliding scale argument. Now please, just define your question and I'll answer it.

Oh, and once you define it so I can answer honestly - I'll be waiting for your answer on my question too

CsG

There is not one person on this planet, other than you, that thinks Bush's campaign hasn't involved smear tactics.

Now, for about 12th time:

Do you support the Bush campaign's smear tactics? Yes...or...No.

 

[alchemize]

Conjur: Do you support the DNC's smear tactics against Bush (the AWOL accusations)? Yes or No?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
There is not one person on this planet, other than you, that thinks Bush's campaign hasn't involved smear tactics.

Now, for about 12th time:

Do you support the Bush campaign's smear tactics? Yes...or...No.

Ah, so now you are ASSuming along with asking a loaded question. Go figure.

Why don't you come back when you have either an honest question - or a definition to go along with your loaded "smear" one. I won't be holding my breath...

CsG

 

[Michael]

Post something like that again and you will not be allowed to participate here.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Michael
Conjur - have you stopped beating your wife?

Michael

QUICK CONJUR! Better grab that hotline again! If its not totally obvious to everyone exactly whats going on here then they're completely blind. And people have the nerve to call conservatives intolerant and dirty tricksters.