Kerry connected to the 9/11 "outrage"?

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
Case proved.

Well, all right! I finally made your sig. Nice. You know, I really am a non-partisan voter. I'll scan my voter registration paperwork and post it if you want me to prove it. You want me to prove it, punk?

Oh, I believe you may be registered as a non-partisan voter, which is quite different than BEING a non-partisan voter What is your voting record?

I'm not sure, but I may actually be a registered democrat...I honestly can't remember but I was pretty liberal when I registered. I voted for libbies in the 2000 election. Couldn't make myself vote for either Gore or Bush.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Tabb
Neither Kerry or Bush look like good presidents.....

Difference is Bush and his administration have proven their failure, beyond a doubt.

Kerry failed the country 30 years ago

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
Case proved.

Well, all right! I finally made your sig. Nice. You know, I really am a non-partisan voter. I'll scan my voter registration paperwork and post it if you want me to prove it. You want me to prove it, punk?

Oh, I believe you may be registered as a non-partisan voter, which is quite different than BEING a non-partisan voter What is your voting record?

I'm not sure, but I may actually be a registered democrat...I honestly can't remember but I was pretty liberal when I registered. I voted for libbies in the 2000 election. Couldn't make myself vote for either Gore or Bush.

Didn't vote prior to 1992. In 1992 I voted for Perot. In 1996 I voted for Clinton. In 2000 I voted for Nader. Did I throw my vote away? Oh the nooooess. :Q Heh, heh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Like alchemize said to start you off on this:
"Vietnam was a political violent event, a war. Kerry talks about his leadership and bravery.
9/11 was a political violent event, a terrorist attack. Bush talks about his leadership and response to terror.
Either both are OK, or both aren't."

Unless you are a ~but...
then anything is justifiable

Yes, that's right Alchie, A=B because you say so. Just like the president, some people don't do nuance.

I guess the fact that the 9/11 tragedy is still fresh in everyone's mind wouldn't have anything to do with it? Vietnam was 30+ years ago, hmmmm think the raw emotions have softened over time? I guess some 12-minute documentary on Kerry's life & career buried on his web site among 40 other videos = 30 second spot on national TV? Yes, I can certainly see how people couldn't tell the difference between them.

Yup, you've single-handedly proven it: anything is justifiable. I'm more "outraged" by the black/white mindset around here than anything Bush has done at this point.

Case proved.

Again

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Like alchemize said to start you off on this:
"Vietnam was a political violent event, a war. Kerry talks about his leadership and bravery.
9/11 was a political violent event, a terrorist attack. Bush talks about his leadership and response to terror.
Either both are OK, or both aren't."

Unless you are a ~but...
then anything is justifiable

Yes, that's right Alchie, A=B because you say so. Just like the president, some people don't do nuance.

I guess the fact that the 9/11 tragedy is still fresh in everyone's mind wouldn't have anything to do with it? Vietnam was 30+ years ago, hmmmm think the raw emotions have softened over time? I guess some 12-minute documentary on Kerry's life & career buried on his web site among 40 other videos = 30 second spot on national TV? Yes, I can certainly see how people couldn't tell the difference between them.

Yup, you've single-handedly proven it: anything is justifiable. I'm more "outraged" by the black/white mindset around here than anything Bush has done at this point.

Case proved.

Again

CkG

I fixed your post Cad.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Like alchemize said to start you off on this:
"Vietnam was a political violent event, a war. Kerry talks about his leadership and bravery.
9/11 was a political violent event, a terrorist attack. Bush talks about his leadership and response to terror.
Either both are OK, or both aren't."

Unless you are a ~but...
then anything is justifiable

Yes, that's right Alchie, A=B because you say so. Just like the president, some people don't do nuance.

I guess the fact that the 9/11 tragedy is still fresh in everyone's mind wouldn't have anything to do with it? Vietnam was 30+ years ago, hmmmm think the raw emotions have softened over time? I guess some 12-minute documentary on Kerry's life & career buried on his web site among 40 other videos = 30 second spot on national TV? Yes, I can certainly see how people couldn't tell the difference between them.

Yup, you've single-handedly proven it: anything is justifiable. I'm more "outraged" by the black/white mindset around here than anything Bush has done at this point.

Case proved.

Again

CkG

I agree with your post Cad.

I fixed your "fix"

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Again

CkG

I agree with your post Cad.

I fixed your "fix"

CkG

OK, you win. I did my best, but I must bow to your vast experience at putting phony words in others' mouths (or keyboards, as the case may be). I'm afraid my forte is accurate quotes.

 

[alchemize]

OH Bowfinger you want to jump in here too and justify how Kerry can bring up Vietnam in his ads (including showing troops, sounds of gunfire, discussing the deaths), and that is "OK", but Bush can't have anything about 9/11 in his ads?

I'd love to hear another ~but spin it...

 

[nutxo]

Roosevelt visited pearl harbor while campaigning , lets put down Roosevelt!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nutxo
Roosevelt visited pearl harbor while campaigning , lets put down Roosevelt!

"Remember Pearl Harbor"

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
OH Bowfinger you want to jump in here too and justify how Kerry can bring up Vietnam in his ads (including showing troops, sounds of gunfire, discussing the deaths), and that is "OK", but Bush can't have anything about 9/11 in his ads?

I'd love to hear another ~but spin it...

Afraid I can't help you with either spin or ~but. The difference between Vietnam and 9/11 is blatantly apparent to me, but I'm not interested in debating it. Frankly, if Bush chooses to exploit the most heinous terrorist act in America's history, an act that occured on his watch and that he may have helped facilitate due to inaction, then he's welcome to do so. If the Democrats have half a clue -- not a given -- this will backfire on Bush. It's an area in which he is extremely vulnerable, IMO.

I just thought DealMonkey's post was on target. I'm sure you disagree with him, but that doesn't prove anything. Couple that with Cad's knee-jerk cheerleading, and I thought a

was in order. That's all.

 

[DealMonkey]

Remember the Alamo too you guys! Seriously!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
OH Bowfinger you want to jump in here too and justify how Kerry can bring up Vietnam in his ads (including showing troops, sounds of gunfire, discussing the deaths), and that is "OK", but Bush can't have anything about 9/11 in his ads?

I'd love to hear another ~but spin it...

Is there any chance you ~butclintons could blame Clinton? Any chance at all? Seriously, this may be an opportunity that you're missing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
OH Bowfinger you want to jump in here too and justify how Kerry can bring up Vietnam in his ads (including showing troops, sounds of gunfire, discussing the deaths), and that is "OK", but Bush can't have anything about 9/11 in his ads?

I'd love to hear another ~but spin it...

Afraid I can't help you with either spin or ~but. The difference between Vietnam and 9/11 is blatantly apparent to me, but I'm not interested in debating it. Frankly, if Bush chooses to exploit the most heinous terrorist act in America's history, an act that occured on his watch and that he may have helped facilitate due to inaction, then he's welcome to do so. If the Democrats have half a clue -- not a given -- this will backfire on Bush. It's an area in which he is extremely vulnerable, IMO.

I just thought DealMonkey's post was on target. I'm sure you disagree with him, but that doesn't prove anything. Couple that with Cad's knee-jerk cheerleading, and I thought a

was in order. That's all.

Buahahahaha - that wasn't ~but spin? Buahahahaha

Reread what you posted - it is all spin. Bush isn't "exploiting" it - his ad was about leadership - not 9/11. But then again like alchemize and I have repeatedly said - if you think Bush is "exploiting 9/11" in these ads then you must also think that kerry is exploiting vietnam in his.
You can't have it both ways - which is what the point is

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
OH Bowfinger you want to jump in here too and justify how Kerry can bring up Vietnam in his ads (including showing troops, sounds of gunfire, discussing the deaths), and that is "OK", but Bush can't have anything about 9/11 in his ads?

I'd love to hear another ~but spin it...

Afraid I can't help you with either spin or ~but. The difference between Vietnam and 9/11 is blatantly apparent to me, but I'm not interested in debating it. Frankly, if Bush chooses to exploit the most heinous terrorist act in America's history, an act that occured on his watch and that he may have helped facilitate due to inaction, then he's welcome to do so. If the Democrats have half a clue -- not a given -- this will backfire on Bush. It's an area in which he is extremely vulnerable, IMO.

I just thought DealMonkey's post was on target. I'm sure you disagree with him, but that doesn't prove anything. Couple that with Cad's knee-jerk cheerleading, and I thought a

was in order. That's all.

Buahahahaha - that wasn't ~but spin? Buahahahaha

Reread what you posted - it is all spin. Bush isn't "exploiting" it - his ad was about leadership - not 9/11. But then again like alchemize and I have repeatedly said - if you think Bush is "exploiting 9/11" in these ads then you must also think that kerry is exploiting vietnam in his.
You can't have it both ways - which is what the point is

CkG

Caddie, Caddie, Caddie. What will we do with you? Not only is your reading deficiency rearing its head again -- I didn't offer an opinion on whether Bush's current ads exploit 9/11 or not; I just explained why I don't care -- but you then impose your opinions on others again as if they are immutable laws of nature, specifically, "if you think Bush is 'exploiting 9/11' in these ads then you must also think that kerry is exploiting vietnam in his." That is only your opinion Cad, and an irrational one at that. Given that 9/11 and Vietnam are different in countless ways, it is perfectly possible and reasonable for people to believe one is exploitive and the other is not. You may disagree all you wish, but it's only your opinion.

Relax. Your title of Spinmeister is safe.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
OH Bowfinger you want to jump in here too and justify how Kerry can bring up Vietnam in his ads (including showing troops, sounds of gunfire, discussing the deaths), and that is "OK", but Bush can't have anything about 9/11 in his ads?

I'd love to hear another ~but spin it...

Afraid I can't help you with either spin or ~but. The difference between Vietnam and 9/11 is blatantly apparent to me, but I'm not interested in debating it. Frankly, if Bush chooses to exploit the most heinous terrorist act in America's history, an act that occured on his watch and that he may have helped facilitate due to inaction, then he's welcome to do so. If the Democrats have half a clue -- not a given -- this will backfire on Bush. It's an area in which he is extremely vulnerable, IMO.

I just thought DealMonkey's post was on target. I'm sure you disagree with him, but that doesn't prove anything. Couple that with Cad's knee-jerk cheerleading, and I thought a

was in order. That's all.

Buahahahaha - that wasn't ~but spin? Buahahahaha

Reread what you posted - it is all spin. Bush isn't "exploiting" it - his ad was about leadership - not 9/11. But then again like alchemize and I have repeatedly said - if you think Bush is "exploiting 9/11" in these ads then you must also think that kerry is exploiting vietnam in his.
You can't have it both ways - which is what the point is

CkG

Caddie, Caddie, Caddie. What will we do with you? Not only is your reading deficiency rearing its head again -- I didn't offer an opinion on whether Bush's current ads exploit 9/11 or not; I just explained why I don't care -- but you then impose your opinions on others again as if they are immutable laws of nature, specifically, "if you think Bush is 'exploiting 9/11' in these ads then you must also think that kerry is exploiting vietnam in his." That is only your opinion Cad, and an irrational one at that. Given that 9/11 and Vietnam are different in countless ways, it is perfectly possible and reasonable for people to believe one is exploitive and the other is not. You may disagree all you wish, but it's only your opinion.

Relax. Your title of Spinmeister is safe.

Bow bow bow - do you ever get tired of yourself? Not only did you miss the point - you seem to think I made statments for you. That opinion you think is "irrational" is very logical...but I don't expect you to understand that. The point is(again for those that still don't understand) If you think Bush is "exploiting" 9/11 then you must also think that kerry is "exploiting" Vietnam. Now what that doesn't mean is - that I think you think that, I'm just saying that IF you do - then you must. You claim to be of the almost the same opinion I am on this - I don't think Bush is "exploiting" 9/11 nor do I think that kerry is really "exploiting" Vietnam. But I also think that someone who says " if Bush chooses to exploit the most heinous terrorist act in America's history, an act that occured on his watch and that he may have helped facilitate due to inaction, then he's welcome to do so" has tried to lay claim to something with out specifically stating it But if confronted on if you think Bush is "exploiting" you can deny it - how nice.

So yes, not only is it my "opinion" that they are both trying to show their "leadership" but anyone who has an ounce of logic can understand the comparitive nature of the two events both are using to show their leadership. To deny those similarities is dishonest. So again - If someone claims that Bush is "exploiting" 9/11 by those ads - then someone who is honest would also have to claim that kerry is "exploiting" Vietnam.

Relax though - you still hold the ~! and ~but crown. (although some are coming close to challenging your ~! crown)

CkG