This is their "plan"?

[ShadesOfGrey]

Democrats map out their "stategery"

"the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.
"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states. "
:laugh: Do they really think "staging" was their problem on the National security front?

Sounds to me like they still believe that their "message" just wasn't getting out. If they keep believing that and just trying to stage things better instead of actually formulating a coherent new message, they will again come up on the losing side of elections.

Call your democrats in office and tell them to get a real plan instead of adopting this political stunt tactic.
You have just gotten some advise from a Conservative who saw his party do the same thing for years which kept them out of office until they did the hard task of creating a message. You can take it or leave it, just don't say I didn't try to help you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Democrats map out their "stategery"

"the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.
"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states. "
:laugh: Do they really think "staging" was their problem on the National security front?

Sounds to me like they still believe that their "message" just wasn't getting out. If they keep believing that and just trying to stage things better instead of actually formulating a coherent new message, they will again come up on the losing side of elections.

Call your democrats in office and tell them to get a real plan instead of adopting this political stunt tactic.
You have just gotten some advise from a Conservative who saw his party do the same thing for years which kept them out of office until they did the hard task of creating a message. You can take it or leave it, just don't say I didn't try to help you.

Yeah the Republicans have demonstrated that any meesage, even if it is wrong, will work especially if it demonizes the opponent.

 

[conjur]

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Democrats map out their "stategery"

"the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.
"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states. "
:laugh: Do they really think "staging" was their problem on the National security front?

Sounds to me like they still believe that their "message" just wasn't getting out. If they keep believing that and just trying to stage things better instead of actually formulating a coherent new message, they will again come up on the losing side of elections.

Call your democrats in office and tell them to get a real plan instead of adopting this political stunt tactic.
You have just gotten some advise from a Conservative who saw his party do the same thing for years which kept them out of office until they did the hard task of creating a message. You can take it or leave it, just don't say I didn't try to help you.

The most important plan I can think of now is getting the crooks out and getting actual competent people in power, what is wrong with that?

Oh, they are your parties crooks and it's the opposition trying to get them out. Your point?

 

[Harvey]

Yeah. Republicans only believe in "staged events" like wars based on lies, abusing the Constitutional rights of American citizens, outing covert CIA agents, lucrative no bid contracts and monumental tax cuts for their closest and richest friends and total incompetence in dealing with the real problems facing the nation. :roll:

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

Shhh... NoSmirk (oops, I mean ShadesOfGrey) thinks he's discovered something by the Moonie Times.

Yawn... boring.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Democrats map out their "stategery"

"the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.
"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states. "
:laugh: Do they really think "staging" was their problem on the National security front?

Sounds to me like they still believe that their "message" just wasn't getting out. If they keep believing that and just trying to stage things better instead of actually formulating a coherent new message, they will again come up on the losing side of elections.

Call your democrats in office and tell them to get a real plan instead of adopting this political stunt tactic.
You have just gotten some advise from a Conservative who saw his party do the same thing for years which kept them out of office until they did the hard task of creating a message. You can take it or leave it, just don't say I didn't try to help you.

Yeah the Republicans have demonstrated that any meesage, even if it is wrong, will work especially if it demonizes the opponent.

Actually, I think the Democrats proved the exact opposite in 2004.

Do you people ("you people" meaning Republicans and Democrats) realize that people aren't voting FOR you... rather they're voting AGAINST the other guy?

It's a battle of who sucks the least and you don't even see it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

such as? links plz.

and does the fact that the Dem party has no clue really surprise you? they have been unable to deliver a coherent message, with a unified front, for years!... the entire party is in shambles.

which actually saddens me btw, because some of their ideas aren't bad ones...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

Shhh... NoSmirk (oops, I mean ShadesOfGrey) thinks he's discovered something by the Moonie Times.

Yawn... boring.

I hope you are satisfied with another couple rounds of election loses then.

BTW, I am not nor ever have been "NoSmirk". You know this, I know this, and the Mods know this. If I was "NoSmirk" as you and your liar freinds keep saying, then why I am still here?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

such as? links plz.

and does the fact that the Dem party has no clue really surprise you? they have been unable to deliver a coherent message, with a unified front, for years!... the entire party is in shambles.

which actually saddens me btw, because some of their ideas aren't bad ones...

One
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030326-4.html

Two
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html

I think that second link is sufficient as it explains it all. Propaganda Tour.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

Shhh... NoSmirk (oops, I mean ShadesOfGrey) thinks he's discovered something by the Moonie Times.

Yawn... boring.

I hope you are satisfied with another couple rounds of election loses then.

BTW, I am not nor ever have been "NoSmirk". You know this, I know this, and the Mods know this. If I was "NoSmirk" as you and your liar freinds keep saying, then why I am still here?

Now Smirky, no need to be so touchy. :laugh:

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

Shhh... NoSmirk (oops, I mean ShadesOfGrey) thinks he's discovered something by the Moonie Times.

Yawn... boring.

I hope you are satisfied with another couple rounds of election loses then.

BTW, I am not nor ever have been "NoSmirk". You know this, I know this, and the Mods know this. If I was "NoSmirk" as you and your liar freinds keep saying, then why I am still here?

Now Smirky, no need to be so touchy. :laugh:

Not "touchy" - just sick of you liars repeating the lie.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

Shhh... NoSmirk (oops, I mean ShadesOfGrey) thinks he's discovered something by the Moonie Times.

Yawn... boring.

I hope you are satisfied with another couple rounds of election loses then.

BTW, I am not nor ever have been "NoSmirk". You know this, I know this, and the Mods know this. If I was "NoSmirk" as you and your liar freinds keep saying, then why I am still here?

Now Smirky, no need to be so touchy. :laugh:

Not "touchy" - just sick of liars like me repeating the administration's lies.

Fixed.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

such as? links plz.

and does the fact that the Dem party has no clue really surprise you? they have been unable to deliver a coherent message, with a unified front, for years!... the entire party is in shambles.

which actually saddens me btw, because some of their ideas aren't bad ones...

One
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030326-4.html

Two
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html

I think that second link is sufficient as it explains it all. Propaganda Tour.

Neither back up your claim that it is against policy. They were not political or election events. They were about the War. Try reading the OP link.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

Shhh... NoSmirk (oops, I mean ShadesOfGrey) thinks he's discovered something by the Moonie Times.

Yawn... boring.

I hope you are satisfied with another couple rounds of election loses then.

BTW, I am not nor ever have been "NoSmirk". You know this, I know this, and the Mods know this. If I was "NoSmirk" as you and your liar freinds keep saying, then why I am still here?

Now Smirky, no need to be so touchy. :laugh:

Not "touchy" - just sick of liars like me repeating the administration's lies.

Fixed.

:laugh: hahahaha!!! hahaha!!!!

:roll: Go troll elsewhere liar.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur

However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, "commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. ..."

Then how does that explain the various events catapaulting the propaganda held by this very administration at numerous military locations?

such as? links plz.

and does the fact that the Dem party has no clue really surprise you? they have been unable to deliver a coherent message, with a unified front, for years!... the entire party is in shambles.

which actually saddens me btw, because some of their ideas aren't bad ones...

One
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030326-4.html

Two
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60725-2004Sep29.html

I think that second link is sufficient as it explains it all. Propaganda Tour.

uhh, ok. ya see, the President, once elected, is allowed to go to any military base he wants, any time he desires, and say whatever the heck he wants. He's the Commander-in-Chief, and therefore the highest ranking military officer in the USA. (in case you forgot!)

I thought for sure that you would try to come up with a link showing Bush doing so prior to his election in 2000; as THAT would have been relevant to the Dem's desires to use military locations for rallies and such... but, alas, your entire point was foiled again by that everpresent spoiler: reality.

GG

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole point is to correct the deliberate misperception that Repubs are better at "fighting terror" than Dems.

Repubs are merely better at creating terrorists, then grandstanding on the ensuing fight. Witness Iraq...

And Repubs have been better at exploiting and fostering kneejerk reactions to trumped up non-issues and exaggerations of real issues- yeh, their message has been more unified, in the sense that they've offered up a cohesive web of lies and distortions...

At this point, it really doesn't matter that the Repubs song and dance is more emotionally satisfying- people are actually starting to think again, rather than to react emotionally. So the simple fact that the current Repub leadership has been revealed as a pack of liars, cheats, thieves and conmen is only underscored by their incompetence to actually govern...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Not "touchy" - just sick of you liars repeating the lie.

What?s in a name? that which we call a troll
By any other name would smell as rotten . . .

:lips:

 

[trenchfoot]

At this point, it really doesn't matter that the Repubs song and dance is more emotionally satisfying- people are actually starting to think again, rather than to react emotionally. So the simple fact that the current Repub leadership has been revealed as a pack of liars, cheats, thieves and conmen is only underscored by their incompetence to actually govern

i agree with most of this. imho i have to add though, that the neocons had a pretty good idea how long the charade would last before starting their next phase of the exploitation of the common masses. the neocons were more than willing to take the backlash in exchange for the untold extra billions they managed to squeeze out of the wallets of the present and future taxpayers. and as soon as this momentary backlash ends though, they're going to re-start the whole act all over again.

as far as i'm concerned, many well-to-do members of the dnc, by way of their weak-kneed response to alot of what the neocons have been accused of, seems to surreptitiously condone whatever the neocons do that benefit themselves personally, then sit back and blame the neocons for making them richer.....poor things.

the principle that taxes are only meant to benefit the rich goes hand-in-hand with the principle of squeezing and wringing those riches (via tax-derived hand-outs) out of the middle class whilst suppressing wages and benefits to the poor to minimize the drain on "their" bottomless pool of free credit.

 

[Rainsford]

Actually, I think this is pretty smart. Republicans love to mock the Democrats "getting their message out", claiming that the problem isn't trasmitting the message, it's that the message sucks. But I think this past election shows that they couldn't be more wrong. In the 2004 election, Bush voters knew why they were voting for Bush. Many of us thought the reasons were stupid, but still, Bush voters knew what they were voting for. Kerry, on the other hand, did not do a great job of convincing people he stood for anything in particular. Record numbers of people voted for him because he wasn't Bush, but there was clearly a difference.

The best thing the Dems can do now is exactly what they are doing, making it clear what they stand for and how they are different from the Republicans. This whole NSA spying fiasco may enrage the police staters, but it sets clear limits between where Democrats stand on the issue and where Republicans stand on the issue. You may not agree with the Dems, but people who do will have a clear idea of who to support. And this same thing will work on a broader scale, on a variety of issues.

ShadesOfGrey's silly pandering tone aside, presentation is exactly the problem the Dems have on the national security issue. Republicans have become the party of national security because they present it as "support us or die". Their actual ideas are less important than how they talk about them. Don't believe me? Then explain the Republican's overall national security strategy in a few sentences. Better yet, ask your average Bush voter just how Bush will protect them from terrorism. I'm fairly certain we all know what the results will be. And yet, the "terrorism" voters went overwhelmingly to Bush in 2004. Was that possibly because Kerry never really made it clear how he was going to protect us...suggesting that maybe he wouldn't protect us at all. I personally think staged rallies at military bases and stunts like landing on aircraft carriers are silly, and yet they worked very well for Bush.

I know, I know, people are too intellectual to fall for that kind of crap...especially Republicans. It's hard to admit, but people (even people who vote like you do, very possibly even you) are pretty dumb when it comes to that sort of thing. The pseudo-intellectuals on the right would like to believe it is the Republican's grand plans that have carried them to victory, and that the truly silly advertising was just window dressing that really didn't do a whole lot. But advertising and message-building is highly effective on people as a whole, otherwise companies wouldn't spend so much time and money doing it. Look at Apple's huge success with the iPod. How much of that do you think is due to the great design, and how much is due to how well they've done in building their brand? People aren't really smart about this sort of thing, especially when it comes to areas they have little expertise in. Let's face it, the average person is fairly incompetent when it comes to judging the value of national security plans. Most people can't speak intelligently about whether or not invading Iraq is making the war on terror worse or better. Most people can't even really make an informed decision about things like increased police power and airport security. It's not because their stupid, it's because they lack the information and skills to make those decisions...because they are complex issues. In Republican fantasy land, Republicans are ahead because they have a better message. But reality suggests that they are ahead mostly because they are better at selling it.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Actually, I think this is pretty smart. Republicans love to mock the Democrats "getting their message out", claiming that the problem isn't trasmitting the message, it's that the message sucks. But I think this past election shows that they couldn't be more wrong. In the 2004 election, Bush voters knew why they were voting for Bush. Many of us thought the reasons were stupid, but still, Bush voters knew what they were voting for. Kerry, on the other hand, did not do a great job of convincing people he stood for anything in particular. Record numbers of people voted for him because he wasn't Bush, but there was clearly a difference.

The problem wasn't getting his message out, it was that he didn't have a message except "not Bush" and with the media's help he definately got that message out. If he would have had a coherent plan and message he would have done far better.

Key for you lefties- find a NEW message. Not "anti-Bush", "Education", "Social Security"/welfare, or one of your other recycled chants. People are obviously wise to the fact that you give nothing more than lip service to theses issues which used to gain you votes. Time to find something that people can hold on to and grasp. Good luck, with the way you are going you will need all the luck you can get! :laugh:

 

[piasabird]

Do you think the voters will forget all the evil spirited things said by the Democrats in the past 8 years?

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Actually, I think this is pretty smart. Republicans love to mock the Democrats "getting their message out", claiming that the problem isn't trasmitting the message, it's that the message sucks. But I think this past election shows that they couldn't be more wrong. In the 2004 election, Bush voters knew why they were voting for Bush. Many of us thought the reasons were stupid, but still, Bush voters knew what they were voting for. Kerry, on the other hand, did not do a great job of convincing people he stood for anything in particular. Record numbers of people voted for him because he wasn't Bush, but there was clearly a difference.

The problem wasn't getting his message out, it was that he didn't have a message except "not Bush" and with the media's help he definately got that message out. If he would have had a coherent plan and message he would have done far better.

Key for you lefties- find a NEW message. Not "anti-Bush", "Education", "Social Security"/welfare, or one of your other recycled chants. People are obviously wise to the fact that you give nothing more than lip service to theses issues which used to gain you votes. Time to find something that people can hold on to and grasp. Good luck, with the way you are going you will need all the luck you can get! :laugh:

Point proven. Again and again and again. The Democrats DO have a message...you are just too blind by your partisanship to hear it.

And yes, part of that message is "not Bush," but please, if you'd take off your red-colored glasses for a bit and listen, that is a main point of ANY minority party seeking to gain office over an unpopular incumbent.

Though we'll never know, a lot of the Bush votes went to him, not because they agreed with him (what's there to agree with? Killing is bad? puh-leeze. Some message), it's because they didn't want to vote for Frankenstein's monster. Plus the fact that most of Bush's war chest went to demonizing Kerry, and you'll see that the Republican message is more "not them" than the Democrat message.

Also, I'd like to point out that only already-elected incumbents are staging these events. So technically, by your standards, it's not "political grandstanding" after all, is it?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Actually, I think this is pretty smart. Republicans love to mock the Democrats "getting their message out", claiming that the problem isn't trasmitting the message, it's that the message sucks. But I think this past election shows that they couldn't be more wrong. In the 2004 election, Bush voters knew why they were voting for Bush. Many of us thought the reasons were stupid, but still, Bush voters knew what they were voting for. Kerry, on the other hand, did not do a great job of convincing people he stood for anything in particular. Record numbers of people voted for him because he wasn't Bush, but there was clearly a difference.

The problem wasn't getting his message out, it was that he didn't have a message except "not Bush" and with the media's help he definately got that message out. If he would have had a coherent plan and message he would have done far better.

Key for you lefties- find a NEW message. Not "anti-Bush", "Education", "Social Security"/welfare, or one of your other recycled chants. People are obviously wise to the fact that you give nothing more than lip service to theses issues which used to gain you votes. Time to find something that people can hold on to and grasp. Good luck, with the way you are going you will need all the luck you can get! :laugh:

Point proven. Again and again and again. The Democrats DO have a message...you are just too blind by your partisanship to hear it.

And yes, part of that message is "not Bush," but please, if you'd take off your red-colored glasses for a bit and listen, that is a main point of ANY minority party seeking to gain office over an unpopular incumbent.

Though we'll never know, a lot of the Bush votes went to him, not because they agreed with him (what's there to agree with? Killing is bad? puh-leeze. Some message), it's because they didn't want to vote for Frankenstein's monster. Plus the fact that most of Bush's war chest went to demonizing Kerry, and you'll see that the Republican message is more "not them" than the Democrat message.

Also, I'd like to point out that only already-elected incumbents are staging these events. So technically, by your standards, it's not "political grandstanding" after all, is it?

Point proven? OK :roll:

OK, so what is the Democrat's message? The same BS they've been using the last 30 years? or Anti-Bush/Republican? So what is new with their message? Nothing, they just want to try to wrap their same tired BS in the flag and hope people swallow it.

Talking about blind partisanship, if your types weren't so blindly partisan you'd already be working on the new message but instead you continue to ignore reality and think you just need to get it out better.
I watched the Republicans go through this same thing years ago and was frustrated as hell with it. They finally had the gonads to take the difficult look at themselves and their message and retool it so it was relevant. They did, and have been sucessful since that time.
Take it or leave it. :laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGreySounds to me like they still believe that their "message" just wasn't getting out. If they keep believing that and just trying to stage things better instead of actually formulating a coherent new message, they will again come up on the losing side of elections.

Democrats are the party of no ideas, Republicans are the party of bad ideas. You know, after the last 6 years of one bad idea followed by another, I think going back to no ideas is starting to look better and better.