Kingmaker
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Kingmaker
-
-
Kind of like when Obama got confused and referred to his "muslim" faith, and the 57 states he had visited. Here's a newsflash, there will be more slip-ups by all before the election.
really? Obama maintains that there are 57 states? and didn't immediately correct himself about saying muslim faith?
-
How many is "all"? Two? Three?
100% of all lawsuits in history by a governing party against the opposition.
If the situations were reversed you can bet your bottom dollar they'd be all over the Tories faster than George Smitherman dodging questions on the C. Difficile file!Talk about blind partisanship! If that's the way they want the country to be run, we might as well become a dictatorship and give up elections altogether. Or perhaps imitate the old Stalinist system, where all candidates belong to the same party.
I'm not a liberal party supporter. also you're argument is rather hilarious because you're claiming that if we don't allow the government to silence it's opposition in the courts, we may as well live in a dictatorship. You want to talk about blind Partisanship? It's a person who upon having his party criticized by a relative new comer to the forum, assumes that the poster has a particular party affiliation, because it allows them to disregard what the person is saying. Thanks for giving us such a great example of cognitive dissonance. Anyway, returning to the topic,
1. The conservative party has not won any lawsuit, we haven't established that the Liberal party is in fact guilty of anything.
2. The intent of the lawsuit isn't necessarily to win, it could very well be to cast doubt on the original accusation, it's a very American style tactic, which isn't surprising considering Harpers political affiliation.
-
Good old Republican smear tactics. McClellan was considered competent and intelligent enough to be employed by this administration, but after he leaves and blows the whistle, suddenly we shouldn't take anything he says seriously.
I mean good god, he has a book, I mean it's not like the Bush administration couldn't possibly have their OWN ulterior motive for lying. Why, they're all a bunch of sweet angels who don't understand why that big mean McClellan would suddenly turn on them in such a horrible manner.
-
I am not a Republican. I am a registered Democrat, and usually I vote for the Democrats. Not bloody likely this time.
My post had nothing to do with slandering an opponent; it had to do with the fact that making an issue of the Forrestal incident would be a very poor choice. Even if I were handling strategy for the Democrats I would not recommend pushing the Forrestal button since it highlights McCain's service more than any mistake.
For the record, I and most pro-Iraq war Americans agree that Vietnam was unnecessary and disastrous.
I'm not actually discussing the behavior of Republican voters, I'm discussing the perception of Republican candidates. Frankly I don't give a damn about your stated political affiliation ( I've seen too many pretend democrats who always seem to be claiming in perpetuity that they can't support the nominee of the day), or the Forrestal incident. I'm pointing out how the American population somehow manages to have a double standard in regards to military service. Somehow Kerry's military service was called into question when compared to Bush, some how it wasn't an issue at all when comparing Al Gore to Bush.
Suddenly we're supposed to give a damn about McCain's military service.
As for being pro Iraq war, that's your cross to bear, the original reasons for the invasion have all turned out to be untrue, the occupation is best described as a fiasco, and it's bankrupting your government. You've picked a hell of a time to decide to back the Republican party.
-
The argument that by speaking with people who oppose you you're "appeasing" is ludicrous and shows either a complete lack of historical knowledge, or a level of deception that indicates a deplorable lack of morality.
Appeasement is when you give in to the demands of an invading power, not when you have diplomatic relations. Negotiation isn't appeasement, discussion isn't appeasement, we could speak with the soviets, why the hell should we be incapable of speaking to Iran?
-
How is this anymore Ironic than any gun owner (who is obviously pro gun ownership) accidently killing his family members or being shot by his own firearm.
Tell me is it poetic justice every time some idiot gun owner kills himself or somebody else unintentionally?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/30/...in2867791.shtml
AP) An off-duty police officer in Connecticut shot and critically wounded his 18-year-old daughter, apparently mistaking her for an intruder after she sneaked out of their home and re-entered through the basement.haw haw right?
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Criminal_Law/....php?item=72528
Ex-cop accidentally shoots, kills wife www.privateofficer.com Atlanta GA. MARCH 5 2008 A former Fulton County sheriff’s major accidentally shot and killed his wife Friday, according to Griffin police. Riley Taylor, 54, was unloading his gun at family function when it discharged, and the bullet struck his 54-year-old wife, Denise, police said. Denise Taylor was flown by medical helicopter to Grady [...]Hilarious!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...4/BAKARHNPS.DTL
San Francisco police Officer James Gustafson Jr. was just getting started on what he intended to be a career in law enforcement when he accidentally shot himself to death as he socialized with friends at his apartment, his father and authorities said Monday.Ahahahahahaha the hilarious irony.
Jesus, christ people, a woman who was attempting to do what she thought was right (even if you disagree with her methods) gets murdered and you guys act as if it's there is some karmic balance. Compasionate conservatism indeed.
-
Just another attempt for the right wing to personalize in a post? Why do it? Do I go naming you in a post? Is that for the Tory playbook? Why can't Tories simply comment on a post without the attacks on the person? Just another example of the elbows up in the corner of today's Conservative party.
Maybe you should sue him, after all his Ad Hominem suggests that you're actually directly affiliated with the Liberal party and are posting under false pretences (thats what a shill is after all) I mean it wouldn't make your case or prove anything about this particular thread, but it would certainly be consistent with the corrosive atmosphere that the party HE supports is attempting to produce in terms of anybody laying criticism on the conservatives.
I never thought I'd see the day when the governing party thought lawsuits were the best path to dealing with criticism.
-
Oh yes, "but the liberals..." I'd like to introduce you all to a concept called "tu quoque"
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.It doesn't matter what the liberals did, they can both act poorly.
Additionally, the point of the opposition IS to attack the government in power. Welcome to the wonders of the westminster system people. You'd think an ellected official would realize that under this system, the ruling party rules, and the opposition attacks.
The ruling party certainly doesn't sue the opposition for not being nice!
-
I find it a curious artifact of republican thinking that serving in a frankly disasterous war is somehow indicative of your qualifications to run the country. Especially when you consider the relative danger and quality of service of Bush and his various chickenhawks vs Al Gore, or Kerry.
Apparently military service is only important so much as you can use it to slander the opponent.
Support our troops! (kinda)
-
Good point...
...perhaps it is a calculated move to trick people who are easily tricked.
Also known as the Republican base.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bqy2vrPGV8...win-in-january/
Apparently Mccain intends to win the presidential ellection in January.
-
However, if Obama chooses to break his promise, and reject public financing, he'll have a significant advantage in funds, but may have more political problems to defend in the fall, as to why he promised to accept public campaign financing, but then, flip-flop on his promise. Is that part of the new change he's promising to his voters?
Well Flip Flopping certainly hasn't hurt McCain I.E. the lobbyist issue. But of course McCain wasn't public financing, he knows that Obama will raise way more money than him.
But it's ok if you're a Republican.
-
I think that people are making some pretty fundamental errors if they think that organizations like Hamas or individuals such as Osama Bin Laden arn't completely aware of what the actual results of their "endorsements" these governments and organizations are well aware of the negative light in which they're perceived in the west. Taking their endorsement seriously is foolish and counter productive. These people are not unsophisticated barbarians who have not heard of such concepts as "deception"
Palin won't meet
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted · Edited by Kingmaker
On what grounds can Todd Palin possibly refuse to appear?