In response to some *assertions*....

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
Im getting pretty sick of it...

tough shiz

Republican filth.. In response to your Kerry Baby link..

The Smear campaign goes on

Awwww - poor baby can't handle some humor:roll: Grow up.[/quote]
Go ahead be an idiot, vote Bush and for 4 more Wars.[/quote]No, I'm not going to be an "idiot", but I am going to vote for Bush.

If you like an intelligent man of good character and one that actually HAS MILITARY EXPERIENCE, vote KERRY

That's fine if you want to express your OPINION, but others hold the opposite opinion.

? When Bush first took office, he said the economy was so good we should have huge tax cuts, but now he claims we were in a recession then and that is why we now have record deficits.

Huh? During the 2000 Campaign Bush warned the economy was losing strength. Go back and educate yourself. Yes the recession hurt the economy and our fiscal health. Do you really think INCREASING the tax burden on people would have helped the economy?

? Candidate Bush was very vocal in his criticism of nation building, but now President Bush is busy building nations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and it looks like Haiti is next. These nations are being built with our soldier?s lives and our tax dollars.

And? Do you not see how our world view has changed since 9/11? I do. I don't think "Nation building" should be our goal but we have to do it when necessary. So is it your contention that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq thus allowing a breeding ground of terrorism and a murderous dictator, who played the world for years, inplace?

? Bush claimed his budget plan would reduce the National Debt. Instead, the federal debt has increased to almost $7 trillion.

? Which budget? Before or after the tech bubble burst and 9/11 happened? Anyway - if you'd ever read what I've posted here you'd see that I am VERY pissed about the level of spending the FEDs do. We don't need our gov't spending 2.4+ TRILLION every year just to run but some people here think we need to and infact seem to want to increase spending.

? Candidate Bush promised to protect the Social Security trust fund, but President Bush has already squandered more than $350 billion from the fund. (Consortium News, 3/2/04)

? you have any specific point or are you just tossing out some broad accusation for filler?

? Bush said he would, ?enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered...", but federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since he took office. (Bill Gallagher, Friends of Liberty, 12/11/03)

I've addressed the fiscal policy of our FEDERAL gov't already many times. People need to realize that our gov't isn't the cure for every little ill you have.

? Candidate Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide, but two months after taking office, President Bush changed his mind.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation?

? Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation?

? Bush said he would veto the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, but changed his mind and signed it.

Yeah, that doesn't make me happy. The "finance reform" issue is a joke. Just look at how well it has worked at keeping BIG donations out of politics.:roll: Soros and other rich boys just found other ways to funnel big money into politics - 527s. McCain-Feingold(like the back of my hand:roll: ) is a joke.

? Bush opposed an investigation of the attacks of 9/11?then he supported it, but his administration has done everything it could to obstruct the investigation.

Again do you have more than just a broad rhetoric? But if you want to play that game - maybe he realized it would just turn into a circus...oh wait - he would be right. It has become quite the circus. I'm all for finding out how we can help prevent future occurrences by looking at what went wrong but if they just want to try to assign blame then I don't support the commission.

? Bush opposed an Iraq WMD investigation, but then he's for it because he has to pretend he?s interested in why he was so wrong about Iraq?s WMD.

Again do you have more than just a broad rhetoric? I know you hate Bush and all but your little accusations are full of innuendo and assumptions but have little in the detail dept.

? When asked about gay marriage, candidate Bush said, ?the state can do what they want to do,??but now President Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Yes, Bush would support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage. You know... kind of like what the DoMA that Clinton signed does.

? During an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, Bush opposed the pro-life amendment and favored leaving the abortion question to a woman and her doctor. Then, like his father before him, he customized his beliefs to become more electable to conservatives. (The Nation, 6/15/00)

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation and rhetoric?

? Bush promised money for first responders, but failed to provide the funds.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation?

? Bush promised billions of dollars to help fight AIDS in Africa, but failed to provide the funds.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation?

? Bush presented his ?No Child Left Behind Program? with great fanfare, but failed to provide the funds.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation? Who wrote the Education bill? ah...that's right... Oh and for all these "funding" issues you bring up. Weren't you earlier complaining about the deficit? Do you really want to spend more or is this just another hack attempt to try to blast Bush? Bush's tax-cuts didn't create the deficit but even if you call tax-cuts "costs" like the left does they still don't add up to the total deficit. So you can't blame everything on the tax-cuts.

? Bush continues to praise American troops, but continues to try to cut benefits for them and their families.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation and rhetoric?

? Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden?, but changed it to, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.?

Again just more BS rhetoric? You have any proof of that quote or were you trying to summarize your opinion of what he has said?

and thats just the start.

please don't be a hypocrite..

Thanks, I won't. Bush will get my vote.

eveything Kerry has "flip flopped" on has been a result of the Bush Administration

Ah yes, the old standby - "it's all Bush's fault". Maybe you should grow up and then come back with a better argument.:roll:

such as:

No Child Left Behind Act, Underfunded by 9billion, it is not effective, that is why he doesnt like it. Even when Bush said he would fund the program.

Again, you do realize who wrote the Education bill - right?

The 87 billion- He voted for it then voted against it because, he thought the troops needed gear. Voted against it because Bush hadn't gone about going to war the right way and it was a protest vote, he voted against it as a protest vote and knew that it would not affect the outcome of the allocated money because it was a "sure thing" to pass.

I can't believe you are even trying to spin his 'for it before he voted against it'. That was quite the desperation spin Hehe. I did get a chuckle out of your attempt though.

The Patriot Act- Bush has continually revised his "rules of conduct" of invading our lives in which Kerry had agreed upon in the first place.. Bush has taken it too far and there you have him changing his mind.

The Patriot Act has been "revised"? Doesn't that take an amendment or changes to the LAW? Bush can just do that by himself?

Care to list any other supposed Kerry "flip flops" for me so I can give you my rebutle?

There are many threads with them. I suggest you go find them if you wish to discuss them.

Anyway - the "issues" you posted and added your rhetoric to have all been discussed here in different threads. If you wish to discuss the actual issue - go find the threads that deal with them. If you just wish to practice your rhetoric and partisan accusation slinging - then here is the thread for you to practice those skills in.

Have fun

CkG

 

[drewshin]

great, im glad you got it off your chest.

 

[tallest1]

Galt, if someone makes point-by-point statements, its plain ASSUMED that each claim isn't followed by a page-long explanation. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong but if you're going to argue back, please a) choose a narrower argument, not someone's list of summaries/generalizations and b) if you want a true discussion, pick on someone who capable of having one.

 

[conjur]

CkG,

Bush Opposed DHS
Bush Reverses Course on Carbon Dioxide (Read Suskind's book on Paul O'Neill for some more detail.)
TOP 15 FLIP-FLOPS of GEORGE W. BUSH

4. Osama Bin Laden:
September 13, 2001, Bush: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama
bin Laden. It is our Number One Priority and we will not rest until we find him."

March 13, 2002, Bush: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

The 87 billion- He voted for it then voted against it because, he thought the troops needed gear. Voted against it because Bush hadn't gone about going to war the right way and it was a protest vote, he voted against it as a protest vote and knew that it would not affect the outcome of the allocated money because it was a "sure thing" to pass.

I can't believe you are even trying to spin his 'for it before he voted against it'. That was quite the desperation spin Hehe. I did get a chuckle out of your attempt though.

Here is the real spin.

 

[Siddhartha]

What do I have against GWB?
I do not want him and the religious right to choose the next three Supreme Court justices.

The idea of Jerry Falwell and et having the final say on the Supreme Court gives me the willies!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tallest1
Galt, if someone makes point-by-point statements, its plain ASSUMED that each claim isn't followed by a page-long explanation. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong but if you're going to argue back, please a) choose a narrower argument, not someone's list of summaries/generalizations and b) if you want a true discussion, pick on someone who capable of having one.

*golf clap*

Do you see why it didn't belong in the other thread?
You seem to have the same view on this as what I was trying to point out. His attempts and bashing Bush were broad and contained few details yet wanted to stick them all in a thread about a religious group talking about the environment. And his whining about me not answering them(in the other thread) was stupid for the exact reasons you suggested - way to broad of argument full of summaries/generalizations AND because it was someone who doesn't seem willing to actually discuss each topic in it's appropriate thread - which I've pointed out there are threads concerning almost every "issue" he brings up.
Note my last statmens -

Anyway - the "issues" you posted and added your rhetoric to have all been discussed here in different threads. If you wish to discuss the actual issue - go find the threads that deal with them. If you just wish to practice your rhetoric and partisan accusation slinging - then here is the thread for you to practice those skills in.

I know exactly what you are saying and it's what I suggested

But people are free to practice there rhetoric here if they wish

CkG

 

[Phokus]

Cad loves bush because secretly, he's a closetted commie

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
CkG,

Bush Opposed DHS
Bush Reverses Course on Carbon Dioxide (Read Suskind's book on Paul O'Neill for some more detail.)
TOP 15 FLIP-FLOPS of GEORGE W. BUSH

4. Osama Bin Laden:
September 13, 2001, Bush: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama
bin Laden. It is our Number One Priority and we will not rest until we find him."

March 13, 2002, Bush: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

What is it the youngsters say these days? . . . It will come to me. . . . Oh, that's right,

pwned!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Cad loves bush because secretly, he's a closetted commie

Closetted???

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

CAD YOU JUST GOT PWNED by conjur.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Do you see why it didn't belong in the other thread?
You seem to have the same view on this as what I was trying to point out. His attempts and bashing Bush were broad and contained few details yet wanted to stick them all in a thread about a religious group talking about the environment. And his whining about me not answering them(in the other thread) was stupid for the exact reasons you suggested - way to broad of argument full of summaries/generalizations AND because it was someone who doesn't seem willing to actually discuss each topic in it's appropriate thread - which I've pointed out there are threads concerning almost every "issue" he brings up.

You keep talking about the "broad accusations", like:
"Candidate Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide, but two months after taking office, President Bush changed his mind."
"Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it."
"Bush promised money for first responders, but failed to provide the funds."
"Bush promised billions of dollars to help fight AIDS in Africa, but failed to provide the funds."

What more detail do you want for these not to be considered "broad accusations"? For example, on the AIDS issue, Bush promised billions of dollars of aid to Africa in the 2003 SOTU, yet a very small percentage of the promised funds have been appropriated. Now how is this a "broad accusation"? It is a very specific issue.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: tallest1



Galt, if someone makes point-by-point statements...

Geez, I just got here and just now read this thread...what did I do?

 

[smashp]

hurry Up, get heartsurgeon in hear. Cad need some Blood thinners and a Asperin. Cad just Had a nervous Breakdown 6.5 months before the election.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: smashp
hurry Up, get heartsurgeon in hear. Cad need some Blood thinners and a Asperin. Cad just Had a nervous Breakdown 6.5 months before the election.

HeRe, Not hEAr.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur
CkG,

Bush Opposed DHS
Bush Reverses Course on Carbon Dioxide (Read Suskind's book on Paul O'Neill for some more detail.)
TOP 15 FLIP-FLOPS of GEORGE W. BUSH

4. Osama Bin Laden:
September 13, 2001, Bush: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama
bin Laden. It is our Number One Priority and we will not rest until we find him."

March 13, 2002, Bush: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

What is it the youngsters say these days? . . . It will come to me. . . . Oh, that's right,

pwned!

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD YOU JUST GOT PWNED by conjur.

Umm - no. I suggest people learn to read before proclaiming such things. But again if people wish to practice their rhetoric they are more then welcome to do so here But if you want to discuss the actuall issues - find one of the often many threads about each topic.

smashp - no breakdown, infact I wasn't even going to do it but I was taking a break from drywalling and painting my kitchen when I posted it, I was just taking care of one asshat's rantings about Bush from a different thread which didn't deal with the multitude of supposed issues he tried to bring up.

Meh bleat on.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur
CkG,

Bush Opposed DHS
Bush Reverses Course on Carbon Dioxide (Read Suskind's book on Paul O'Neill for some more detail.)
TOP 15 FLIP-FLOPS of GEORGE W. BUSH

4. Osama Bin Laden:
September 13, 2001, Bush: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama
bin Laden. It is our Number One Priority and we will not rest until we find him."

March 13, 2002, Bush: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

What is it the youngsters say these days? . . . It will come to me. . . . Oh, that's right,

pwned!

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD YOU JUST GOT PWNED by conjur.

Umm - no. I suggest people learn to read before proclaiming such things. But again if people wish to practice their rhetoric they are more then welcome to do so here But if you want to discuss the actuall issues - find one of the often many threads about each topic.

smashp - no breakdown, infact I wasn't even going to do it but I was taking a break from drywalling and painting my kitchen when I posted it, I was just taking care of one asshat's rantings about Bush from a different thread which didn't deal with the multitude of supposed issues he tried to bring up.

Meh bleat on.

CkG

Nope...you were pwn3d!

Shall I pwn you some more?

? Candidate Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide, but two months after taking office, President Bush changed his mind.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation?

Bush Reverses Course on Carbon Dioxide (Read Suskind's book on Paul O'Neill for some more detail.)

? Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation?

Bush Opposed DHS

? Bush opposed an investigation of the attacks of 9/11?then he supported it, but his administration has done everything it could to obstruct the investigation.

Again do you have more than just a broad rhetoric? But if you want to play that game - maybe he realized it would just turn into a circus...oh wait - he would be right. It has become quite the circus. I'm all for finding out how we can help prevent future occurrences by looking at what went wrong but if they just want to try to assign blame then I don't support the commission.

The Bush administration initially opposed creation of the commission and did not want its investigation extended beyond May

? Bush opposed an Iraq WMD investigation, but then he's for it because he has to pretend he?s interested in why he was so wrong about Iraq?s WMD.

Again do you have more than just a broad rhetoric? I know you hate Bush and all but your little accusations are full of innuendo and assumptions but have little in the detail dept.

The White House initially rejected calls from Kay and key members of Congress for an independent review of prewar intelligence on Iraq

? During an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, Bush opposed the pro-life amendment and favored leaving the abortion question to a woman and her doctor. Then, like his father before him, he customized his beliefs to become more electable to conservatives. (The Nation, 6/15/00)

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation and rhetoric?

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20000703&s=corn

[Bush]went on to explain his view on abortion. The Avalanche-Journal reported: "Bush said he opposes the pro-life amendment favored by Reese and favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question. 'That does not mean I'm for abortion,' he said."

So, Bush opposed the main goal of the antiabortion movement, a constitutional amendment banning abortion, which the GOP had endorsed. Moreover, he echoed the language of abortion-rights supporters: Abortion is a matter best left to a woman and her doctor. Bush's reported remarks were in step with the family position. His father, who as a Congressman was such a proponent of family planning he was nicknamed Rubbers, supported abortion rights until he became Reagan's running mate in 1980.

? Bush promised money for first responders, but failed to provide the funds.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation?

http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=R&PressRelease_id=373&Month=7&Year=2003
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=155-03032004

President Bush's budget proposes to cut Homeland Security Department funding for first responders by $700 million for next year and cuts funding for the FIRE Act, a grant program that helps fire departments fund equipment needs, 33 percent by $250 million. In addition, state and local programs for homeland security purposes were reduced $200 million.

http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=R&PressRelease_id=212&Month=2&Year=2003

Last summer, President Bush blocked $2.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding that included aid to first responders.

? Bush presented his ?No Child Left Behind Program? with great fanfare, but failed to provide the funds.

Again do you have more than just a broad accusation? Who wrote the Education bill? ah...that's right... Oh and for all these "funding" issues you bring up. Weren't you earlier complaining about the deficit? Do you really want to spend more or is this just another hack attempt to try to blast Bush? Bush's tax-cuts didn't create the deficit but even if you call tax-cuts "costs" like the left does they still don't add up to the total deficit. So you can't blame everything on the tax-cuts.

No Child Left Behind forces upon schools certain mandates and left those mandates unfunded. Children with IQs below average (children who should be in a special education class or even a school for mentally handicapped children) are forced to score well on the same tests given to children with average or above average IQs. It is unfair to the schools and unfair to the children.

How do I know this? My sister works for the county school system and I had a long conversation with her one day and everyone with whom she works abhors the No Child Left Behind program.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

CAD you just got PWNED twice, and you have nothing to say to back yourself up. How typical of you to brush off any attacks as if they aren't worth your time when you know your wrong and can't back yourself up with any real facts. I guess it's your defense mechanism or something. I can at least admit when I'm wrong but your apparently too arrogant and cocky to do so. Face it, your boy is a flip-flopper just as much as any politician.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD you just got PWNED twice, and you have nothing to say to back yourself up. How typical of you to brush off any attacks as if they aren't worth your time when you know your wrong and can't back yourself up with any real facts. I guess it's your defense mechanism or something. I can at least admit when I'm wrong but your apparently too arrogant and cocky to do so. Face it, your boy is a flip-flopper just as much as any politician.

You don't seem to have a clue or know how to read if you think I was "pwned" :roll: conjur provided some links which Junkie did not. Junkie couldn't back up his BS(he posted in a thread that had nothing to do with any of these "issues") and now conjur has to try to cover for him by trying to throw links around. You see, if you had any sense or reading comprehension skills you'd actually READ what I posted to find out my point instead of ASSuming I was arguing the individual points

Now once again - "If you wish to discuss the actual issue - go find the threads that deal with them. If you just wish to practice your rhetoric and partisan accusation slinging - then here is the thread for you to practice those skills in." (quote from OP for those who have reading issues)

looks like you are trying pretty hard to practice there Sudheer Anne You need to work on some reading skills but you have the partisan rhetoric and intarweb kiddie stuff down.

Bleat on

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD you just got PWNED twice, and you have nothing to say to back yourself up. How typical of you to brush off any attacks as if they aren't worth your time when you know your wrong and can't back yourself up with any real facts. I guess it's your defense mechanism or something. I can at least admit when I'm wrong but your apparently too arrogant and cocky to do so. Face it, your boy is a flip-flopper just as much as any politician.

You don't seem to have a clue or know how to read if you think I was "pwned" :roll: conjur provided some links which Junkie did not. Junkie couldn't back up his BS(he posted in a thread that had nothing to do with any of these "issues") and now conjur has to try to cover for him by trying to throw links around. You see, if you had any sense or reading comprehension skills you'd actually READ what I posted to find out my point instead of ASSuming I was arguing the individual points

Now once again - "If you wish to discuss the actual issue - go find the threads that deal with them. If you just wish to practice your rhetoric and partisan accusation slinging - then here is the thread for you to practice those skills in." (quote from OP for those who have reading issues)

looks like you are trying pretty hard to practice there Sudheer Anne You need to work on some reading skills but you have the partisan rhetoric and intarweb kiddie stuff down.

Bleat on

CkG

Here, let me condense all that down for you CAD.

"Thanks Conjur. I wasn't aware of some of that stuff."

How's that?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD you just got PWNED twice, and you have nothing to say to back yourself up. How typical of you to brush off any attacks as if they aren't worth your time when you know your wrong and can't back yourself up with any real facts. I guess it's your defense mechanism or something. I can at least admit when I'm wrong but your apparently too arrogant and cocky to do so. Face it, your boy is a flip-flopper just as much as any politician.

You don't seem to have a clue or know how to read if you think I was "pwned" :roll: conjur provided some links which Junkie did not. Junkie couldn't back up his BS(he posted in a thread that had nothing to do with any of these "issues") and now conjur has to try to cover for him by trying to throw links around. You see, if you had any sense or reading comprehension skills you'd actually READ what I posted to find out my point instead of ASSuming I was arguing the individual points

Now once again - "If you wish to discuss the actual issue - go find the threads that deal with them. If you just wish to practice your rhetoric and partisan accusation slinging - then here is the thread for you to practice those skills in." (quote from OP for those who have reading issues)

looks like you are trying pretty hard to practice there Sudheer Anne You need to work on some reading skills but you have the partisan rhetoric and intarweb kiddie stuff down.

Bleat on

CkG

Here, let me condense all that down for you CAD.

"Thanks Conjur. I wasn't aware of some of that stuff."

How's that?

Not quite. I'm aware of each of the topics he throws links at And we've been over these topics in other threads. If conjur, sudheer or junkie wishes to actually discuss each issue then they can find the appropriate threads like I've said ever since junkie plopped that turd in the middle of a thread that doesn't deal with any of these supposed issues. I'd be more than willing to discuss each on it's merit and value with junkie in their appropriate threads instead of dealing with a big pile of plop. But I created this thread for people to plop away and practice if they wish since junkie thought it was important.

Have fun

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Oh, I was mistaken when I thought you were just uninformed on those issues. It didn't dawn on me that your responses..."Do you have anything besides rhetoric?"...weren't really asking for information, but rather denying all of the points raised.

 

[DealMonkey]

Cad - this thread makes no sense. You say,

"If you wish to discuss the actual issue - go find the threads that deal with them. If you just wish to practice your rhetoric and partisan accusation slinging - then here is the thread for you to practice those skills in."

So let me get this straight, you pull all of these quotes from various threads, start a new thread so you can respond to each one of them, yet nobody else is allowed to discuss these same issues within this new thread?

What the hell? DO YOU NOT see the irony in starting a thread where only you can respond to a laundry list of assertions from OTHER threads and then telling people to go find the original threads if they want to discuss them. Man, oh man. You're unreal.

 

[conjur]

Heh...CkG accuses people of spouting rhetoric and then when proof backing statements is proffered, he dismisses it as 'throwing links at" it.

:roll:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: conjur
Heh...CkG accuses people of spouting rhetoric and then when proof backing statements is proffered, he dismisses it as 'throwing links at" it.

:roll:

Maybe he has a reading comprehension problem? Cad should probably run along now . . . cease his senseless blathering and stop making broad accusations and spewing rhetoric.