If I found out hs was going to be the "surgeon" that would operate on me to save my life, I'd prefer to die a horribly painful death.
As far as banning the racists and haters, I would rather give them free rein and let them expose themselves. Better to know who the are than to have them lurk in the shadows. I doubt they will garner any converts in this venue anyway.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Really? (Thanks to smashp in this thread for reminding us.)Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Harvey
Uh-huh, and the Bushwhackos would have John Asscroft define and limit it, corner the market on whatever was left, secretly give a monopoly license for it to Haliburton, who would, in turn, create seventeen separate, secretly interlinked offshore subdivisions in the Bahamas for trading in speech and speech futures, shipping it back and forth across the country, adding a profit for each transfer, and selling it back to us for billions.
Of course, they'd lobby the administration to make sure their income for this venture was tax free, or better yet government subsidized, because they were the only ones capable of providing a commodity essential to our "American way of life"... Free speech.
Who's for banning books? Hint: It's not Bush or Ashcroft.
From HS-
"you ain't seen nuthin yet..
gonna be willie horton all over again.."
Now we see that true Republican spirit showing through- crowing and gloating over one of the most dishonest smears in modern political history. Whatever happened to "restoring honor and dignity to the Whitehouse"?
I suppose it's inevitable, given that Dubya sure as hell can't campaign to the middle, as he did in 2000, nor does he want to stand on his record. Smears and innuendo are just about his only hope... While Mike Reagan and Rip have the gall to claim it's the Dems who'll do anything to win...
It boils down to the same question that ruined one of America's greatest fearmongers and smear artists of all time- Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
"you ain't seen nuthin yet..
gonna be willie horton all over again.."
Now we see that true Republican spirit showing through- crowing and gloating over one of the most dishonest smears in modern political history. Whatever happened to "restoring honor and dignity to the Whitehouse"?
I suppose it's inevitable, given that Dubya sure as hell can't campaign to the middle, as he did in 2000, nor does he want to stand on his record. Smears and innuendo are just about his only hope... While Mike Reagan and Rip have the gall to claim it's the Dems who'll do anything to win...
It boils down to the same question that ruined one of America's greatest fearmongers and smear artists of all time- Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
This is indeed a curious post by heartsurgeon (who himself is a strange ranger) - he seems to be advocating a completely mean-spirited, unfair, misleading campaign tack by his own party. I for one am glad Lee Atwater's dead, and was glad to see GHWB lose in his re-election effort, if only because it would have pissed Atwater off.
It seems to me that, by HS's logic, liberals could, in good conscience, advocate for ads exploring President Bush's criminal history and that of VP Cheney (they are certainly the only presidential ticket to have 3 DUIs between them, and GWB is the first President ever elected with a criminal record), his alleged drug use, VP Cheney's 5 deferrals to avoid service in Vietnam, and the neverending question of whether President Bush did his ALANG duties, not to mention the secretive shenanigans that have permeated the White House for the last 4 years. Then there's the 7 minues spent reading "My Pet Goat," followed by a 20-minute photo op, while VP Cheney was, according to the 9/11 Commission, exceeding his legal authority by ordering interception of civilian planes over CONUS, and the fact that GWB has taken more than a year of vacation over the last 3 1/2 years, more than any President in history. I for one don't want this stuff unnecessarily dragged out, any more than I want the kind of dirty-tricks tactics HS advocates.
What kind of culture are we creating for our children? Do we really want to send the message this is the right way for adults they are told to respect to conduct themselves? Do we really want to leave the more-than-half of the country who didn't vote for the winner hating and resenting him for 4-8 years?
HS, once again, you startle me with your juvenile and ill-thought-out commentary. You're not exactly convincing me you went into surgery to help anyone but yourself (assuming you're not a 15-year-old in Dad's basement, which would frankly make a lot more sense), because you're gleefully arguing in favor of ripping your country apart. I'm a patriot, and I want us to do better, not worse.
If Kerry wanted to run a smear campaign he would be running an ad showing Bush's fund raising speech where he says, "Most people call you the elite.....I call you my base."
It's the only 100% ture statement I've seen "Dubyuh" make.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Michael Moore anyone?
Dean claiming Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time
Teddy Kennedy claiming Bush has reopened the torture chambers
Gore claiming Bush has "played on our fears"
Moveon.org likening Bush to Hitler
Publicizing a 20 year old Bush DUI 1 week before the 2000 Presidential election
Continunig to claim Bush never served (5 years in the national guard versus 1 semester in Vietnam)
oh please spare me the sermonizing.
nothing "misleading" about discussing Kerry's pro-communist, radical pacifist leftist voting history in the Senate....he's left a paper trail (and a video trail i might add) of all sorts of stuff that is going to come forth for people to review.
Taking joy in the death of another....i guess the "death penalty" is reserved only for Republicans and the unborn....
if Kerry can't stand up for himself, and defend his voting record and public statements, he should quit.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Michael Moore is an independent filmmaker, not a campaign manager.
Howard Dean was a COMPETING CANDIDATE! How can you hold Kerry responsible for these comments? Is he also responsible for the silliness Lyndon LaRouche cooks up every 4 years?
Teddy Kennedy is a senior Senator who has been in public service since before GWB was not showing up for physicals, and made his comments in the context of doing his job, not at a Kerry campaign event.
I can't see how the comment that President Bush "played on our fears" is unfair or misleading.
Moveon.org did not liken Bush to Hitler - this was a single, user-submitted ad that never ran (though it was later recycled as part of a campaign-sanctioned Bush ad).
Kerry had nothing to do with the 2000 election - time to let that one drop (though, as I observed above, there was no historical precedent for a President with a criminal conviction).
I leave it to you to decide whether 5 years of occasional weekend service, or 4 months in combat in Vietnam is more desirable, but in any case, Sen Kerry has never commented on President Bush's service.
You can spare me your sanctimonious silliness re. Atwater - you have, unlike me, taken an oath to save human life, and something tells me you'll tip a drink to celebrate when President Clinton kicks off this mortal coil. Joe McCarthy was a Democrat, and I'm glad he's dead too - you happy now?
Howard Dean never made that claim, he merely cited it as interesting, HS. the quote
"The most interesting theory that I?ve heard so far?which is nothing more than a theory, it can?t be proved?is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.? Now, who knows what the real situation is?"
He went on to point out that the Bush Admin's secrecy and games had done nothing to dispel the notion...
I doubt that your reading comprehension is quite that poor, so I'll rate your remark as deliberate distortion.
Ted claims that the torture chambers have been reopened? Some of them, I'm sure, were never closed, like at Gitmo...
Gore claimed that Bush played on our fears- and that's inaccurate in what way? How else did we end up mired in Iraq, passing the Patriot Act that nobody understood, and a few other details like denying due process to American Citizens, etc, etc, ad nauseum... and there was the admin inspired run on duct tape and visqueen- probably fielded to see just how dumb folks really are...
To my knowledge, nobody has claimed that Bush "never served", merely that he apparently got preferential treatment because of his family connections, and that there are some rather strange and unaccounted for absences... he never served a minute under fire...
The Dubyites are getting desperate, apparently- I can almost smell the fear from here. Nothin' to stand on, other than botching the WoT, explosive debt, exposing national security assets, pandering to the fundie fringe, and feeding the rich. No wonder they're working the smear angle for all it's worth- it's all they've got...
Slime away, HS- the unintentional self-parody is amusing...
"The most interesting theory that I?ve heard so far?which is nothing more than a theory, it can?t be proved?is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.? Now, who knows what the real situation is?"
He went on to point out that the Bush Admin's secrecy and games had done nothing to dispel the notion...
I doubt that your reading comprehension is quite that poor, so I'll rate your remark as deliberate distortion.
Ted claims that the torture chambers have been reopened? Some of them, I'm sure, were never closed, like at Gitmo...
Gore claimed that Bush played on our fears- and that's inaccurate in what way? How else did we end up mired in Iraq, passing the Patriot Act that nobody understood, and a few other details like denying due process to American Citizens, etc, etc, ad nauseum... and there was the admin inspired run on duct tape and visqueen- probably fielded to see just how dumb folks really are...
To my knowledge, nobody has claimed that Bush "never served", merely that he apparently got preferential treatment because of his family connections, and that there are some rather strange and unaccounted for absences... he never served a minute under fire...
The Dubyites are getting desperate, apparently- I can almost smell the fear from here. Nothin' to stand on, other than botching the WoT, explosive debt, exposing national security assets, pandering to the fundie fringe, and feeding the rich. No wonder they're working the smear angle for all it's worth- it's all they've got...
Slime away, HS- the unintentional self-parody is amusing...
1. Having served honorably in Viet Nam, Kerry was in a much better position to know the truth in protesting that war, and doing so was a noble act of courage. Remaining silent and NOT following his conscience would have been the easy way out.
2. In no way did his protest betray those who served honorably.
The facts as we now know them have shown that our own governement lied to us about why we were in Viet Nam and what was really happening on the ground while we were there, from Lyndon Johnson's lies about events that led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to McNamara's secret forces in Cambodia forward, to Nixon and Kissinger's grand strategies.
Do you think Mi Lai was a fabrication? It is documented both by testimony and actual film. Do you beileve it was a single, isolated event? Kerry wasn't the only one blowing the whistle. Film footage from news many correspondents confirmed what was going on.
War always comes with excesses. To whatever extent our troops engaged in such extreme behavior, they are the ones who dishonored their uniform, their fellow troops and our country.
If our troops are in sent to battle, the truth about WHY they are being killed and wounded is as important as the fact that that it is happening, at all. It would have been the ultimate betrayal if Kerry had remained silent and not spoken out against the war.
heartsurgeon -- If you think campaign tactics like the infamous "Willie Horton" ad contribute to the democratic values of an election, or if you believe that keeping silent about documented attrocities in any betrays the dedicated, honest, Americans in our armed forces, you are a freaking moron. If you believe that lies and scare tactics are a justifiable, valid means to win an election, you are one sick, dangerous SOB. :|
Thomas Jefferson recognized that a working democracy requires an informed electorate. A plurality or majority built on lies cannot be called a true democracy.
good post--The right wing is really trying to rewrite the history of Vietnam--The fact remains that the dominio theory is kind of like the Wolfowitz theory---a theory. Kerry's service is an issue because the right wing has atttempted to paint him as weak on defense etc. What he is is strong on not letting the defense department waste our money--demanding accountability. He doesn't buy every new weapons system because some general with a buddy at Generaly Dynaimcs wants to build it. As far as the Swift Boat Hatchet Squad goes--nobody who ACTUALLY SERVED BESIDE KERRY has anything negative to say about him. What do we have as a result of four years of GWB---net loss of jobs, high prices at the gas tank, unwinnable war, a health system that is teetering on the brink--I could go on and on--The Bushites have nothing to run on. They exist to scare people.
Kerry makes stuff to aggrandize himself!! He remembers Nixon as President and being in Cambodia in 1968 when neither could have been possible! He throws away his medals in protest...oops, he didn't actually throw them away...he testified about "atrocities" based upon the stories he heard from "veterans" who turned out never to have been in Vietnam, or even the military!
That's why Kerry's picture is displayed in a room dedicated to foreign activists who contributed to the Communist victory over America in the Vietnam War....traitor
That would be the Democrats...they got us in there big time, they passed the Tonkin Resolution. Oh by the way, Sen. Kerry voted for the bill authorizing Bush to invade Iraq....regardless of how Kerry spins it, Kerry and his fellow Democrats overwhelming voted to give Bush the authority to wage war. No bill, no authority, no war. Read the bill. They gave him carte blache to proceed.
Kerry has admitted himself, that he "committed war crimes"
Clinton won the Presidency with a plurality (had Perot not run, Bush1 would have won re-election, and i believe that Clinton was disbarred and fined for committing perjury (as well as impeached).
HAHAHA most liberals think Vietnam was "Nixon's War". What a joke, Vietnam was escalated into a war by Kennedy (Teddy's bro), and turned into a 500,000 troop quagmire by Lyndon Johnson (Democrat father of the "New Society"). The favorite whipping boy of liberals, Nixon, actually reduced our involvement in Vietnam every year he was in office, and fulfilled his campaign promise of bringing the troops home.
HS, I have a hard time following your logic. As a matter of fact it is so convoluted that it is impossible to respond to. You don't even indicate if you were for against the war in Vietnam. How can you sit back and critisize without even taking any kind of a stand? The whole post is a nothing more then an attempt to smear Kerry.
You really need to lay off the crack pipe, or whatever it is your on. Your post is full of personal opinions and conjecture combined with some half truths, out and out lies, with just a sprinkling of truth to try and convince someone (yourself?) that you know what your talking about.
BTW, why don;t you answer Gaard's question about twisting his post around?
You really need to lay off the crack pipe, or whatever it is your on. Your post is full of personal opinions and conjecture combined with some half truths, out and out lies, with just a sprinkling of truth to try and convince someone (yourself?) that you know what your talking about.
BTW, why don;t you answer Gaard's question about twisting his post around?
Mis-stating which lying President was in office in recounting a story is small crap. I wish I had a first generation link to this AP story about Kerry's testimony about U.S. POW's left behind in Indochina, but since it's from 1992, you'll just have to take this source it for what it's worth:
Whether Kerry, himself, was "in" Cambodia or just "in waters near the Cambodian border" means nothing. From his boat, he may not even have known for sure which side of the border he was actually on, and his own superiors may not have been free to tell him. They were clandestine operations so there probably isn't a lot of documentation on them. Unless you have hard evidence to the contrary, maybe you should STFU!
And you know this how? Post credible links to prove your allegation, or STFU :|
Well, let's think about that for a minute. Assuming any part of Kerry's testimony about U.S. attrocites is true, from the Viet Namese veiwpoint, he is doing the honorable thing. He's also doing the honorable thing from the American point of view. If that makes Kerry a traitor, I'll be proud to be the same kind of traitor, too. Of course, maybe YOU believe that attrocities like Mi Lai should be applauded and those who committed them should be decorated as heros. :|
BTW, today, Viet Nam is one of our best newly emerging trading partners. Do you think we should sneak back in and bomb them, again?
Johnson and some of his cabinet worked to stage manage the events in the Tonkin Gulf, and they hyped them to the Congres and the press to get the resolution passed, but it had to be passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress, including Republicans, or it wouldn't have happened.
It does highlight your abject ignorance of history. Johnson was actually very hesitant about doing this because he was preparing to run against Republican, Barry Goldwater, who was spewing fire breathing rhetoric about nuking the all the Commies. Johnson believed he needed a pretext to act against them to avoid the appearance of caving to Goldwater's hawkish viewpoint and to bring any hesitant Democrats with him.
heartsurgeon -- Once again, you have opened your mouth only to change feet.
Since his view, at the time, was that the war, itself, was wrong, is wouldn't be inconsistant if he also believed his own participation in it was a war crime.
You conveniently overlook the fact that he didn't duck out of any battle while he was there. In fact, here come those danged medals for bravery and his three Purple Hearts for his wounds, again, to put that to rest. I don't give a sh8 what the NOT SO SWIFT boat liars say. The official records, and those who were really with him say different.
heartsurgeon -- Once again, you're full of sh8. STFU! :|
And Bushwhacko Jr. was elected by a bare majority of the Supreme Court. Your point is??? :roll:
John Kennedy??? :shocked: The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed in 1964, at which time, sadly, JFK was far too dead to lead anyone into Viet Nam.
If he had lived, we may never have gone to war in Viet Nam.Nixon inherited the war from Johnson. Everyone knows what little regard Nixon held for nicities like the U.S. Constitution, and with a maniac like Kissinger as BOTH Secretary of State AND National Security Advisor, they gladly made it their owns war by initiating the illegal (and botched) invasion of 1970 and subsequent covert bombing operations across the entirety Cambodia. This quote from p393 of Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia says a lot:
heartsurgeon -- I know you're not stupid, and you can understand such facts. I do have to wonder if you're honest enough to admit them. :disgust:
... or better yet, just STFU! :|
For the same reason Bush will not. When we are young, we do things we later regret. Bush and Kerry are no different. Kerry and Bush will never release their "Offical" Military Records for all to see. Because, just as you and I are picking this story apart and making it a partison slam fest the same will be done to the smallest most minutae details of the information released. Lets face it no politician has the nerve to be honest when they know full well what they say and do can be interpreted in any of a 1000 different ways. This whole discussion is moot because both sides have military background issues. Frankly, if military service mattered at all Clinton would have been defeated, or worse, for "dodging" the draft. Frankly I am at a loss as to what even matters to voters anymore besides catch phrases like "values", "rights", and "jobs".
Disclaimer: No I am not bashing Clinton, I voted for him BOTH times. So Dems/Liberals/Progressives, cease and decist. Republicans/Conservatives/Neo-Cons, Leave me alone I am simply pointing out a very clear and relevant point.
for the historically challenged amongst you..
before Kennedy became President..our troop levels in Vietnam were generally below 1000...only really advisory staff, no real "combat troops"
Kennedy was President only three years, and in that time he raised the troop levels 20-fold, to nearly 20,000.
Kennedy had already begun the war in Vietnam...the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 was the formality to "legitimize" what was already underway.
Kennedy started the war....Johnson formalized it, and then rocketed the troop numbers up to 550,000 within another 4 years.
Johnson desperately wanted to negotiate a peace settlement with the North Vietnamize, but they would not even agree to negotiate with him.
Nixon drove the North Vietnamize to the negotiating table in Paris, with "Linebacker I" and "Linebacker II", the systematic bombing by b-52's of the supply trails the vietcong used that ran through Cambodia...this "encourage" the negotiations to take place, something Johnson never figured out how to do. So it turns out the "illegal war" that Sen. Kerry so bitterly recalls, is the actual reason the U.S. was able to negotiate a peace settlement with the North Vietnamize, and ultimately withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam!!! You bleaters never knew that did you.
Well, the South Vietnamize Army was taking over combat functions in Vietnam, and may have prevailed ultimately..however we will never know, because inspite of assurances to the contrary..the Democrats blocked any further mlitary funding of the South Vietnamize armed forces, once the U.S troops began to leave, and the Dems/Libs sealed the fate of the South Vietnamize, and guaranteed the success of the North Vietnamize.
Years later, we are paying the price for Vietnam. Our enemies feel that we can be defeated politically at home (the Dems are trying to make sure history repeats itself), and our allies are never sure now if we will up and leave them high and dry, as we did at the end of the vietnam war, when the Dems cut off all support of the South Vietnamize Military.
ya Kennedy started the war in vietnam...
it was an illegal war, and it was a stupidly prosecuted war, and Johnson needed to legitimize it it make an even bigger mess...why do you think the Destroyers were in the Gulf of Tonkin to begin begin with...because we were "at peace" with North Vietnam?
before Kennedy became President..our troop levels in Vietnam were generally below 1000...only really advisory staff, no real "combat troops"
Kennedy was President only three years, and in that time he raised the troop levels 20-fold, to nearly 20,000.
Kennedy had already begun the war in Vietnam...the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 was the formality to "legitimize" what was already underway.
Kennedy started the war....Johnson formalized it, and then rocketed the troop numbers up to 550,000 within another 4 years.
Johnson desperately wanted to negotiate a peace settlement with the North Vietnamize, but they would not even agree to negotiate with him.
Nixon drove the North Vietnamize to the negotiating table in Paris, with "Linebacker I" and "Linebacker II", the systematic bombing by b-52's of the supply trails the vietcong used that ran through Cambodia...this "encourage" the negotiations to take place, something Johnson never figured out how to do. So it turns out the "illegal war" that Sen. Kerry so bitterly recalls, is the actual reason the U.S. was able to negotiate a peace settlement with the North Vietnamize, and ultimately withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam!!! You bleaters never knew that did you.
Well, the South Vietnamize Army was taking over combat functions in Vietnam, and may have prevailed ultimately..however we will never know, because inspite of assurances to the contrary..the Democrats blocked any further mlitary funding of the South Vietnamize armed forces, once the U.S troops began to leave, and the Dems/Libs sealed the fate of the South Vietnamize, and guaranteed the success of the North Vietnamize.
Years later, we are paying the price for Vietnam. Our enemies feel that we can be defeated politically at home (the Dems are trying to make sure history repeats itself), and our allies are never sure now if we will up and leave them high and dry, as we did at the end of the vietnam war, when the Dems cut off all support of the South Vietnamize Military.
ya Kennedy started the war in vietnam...
it was an illegal war, and it was a stupidly prosecuted war, and Johnson needed to legitimize it it make an even bigger mess...why do you think the Destroyers were in the Gulf of Tonkin to begin begin with...because we were "at peace" with North Vietnam?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter