Jump to content

Flipper Can Dish it, But he Can't Take It


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"We don't need to divide the country argueing about who served and how" -Flipper 1992

"We don't even know if [bush] did serve in the National Guard" -Flipper 2004

Hypocrite? My posts pertained to the issue at hand. Yours delt with water in the great lakes, diverting from the issue. Thus red herring.

BTW I remember reading a while back threatening to report someone for throwing around insults. Perhaps a moniker like 'Black Rat' would be more suitable for ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We don't need to divide the country argueing about who served and how" -Flipper 1992

"We don't even know if [bush] did serve in the National Guard" -Flipper 2004

Hypocrite? My posts pertained to the issue at hand. Yours delt with water in the great lakes, diverting from the issue. Thus red herring.

BTW I remember reading a while back threatening to report someone for throwing around insults. Perhaps a moniker like 'Black Rat' would be more suitable for ya.

Uh, you were trying to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper. I demonstrated Bush is one as well, which you dubbed a red-herring, despite being the first to throw a red herring into the mix. That makes you a hypocrite. That's not an insult, but a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn.

Fact is, you're ducking the debate.

The first issue is the role of negative campaigning. the consensus among the righties on this thread is that "Kerry can't take it, even though (insert leftist cause here) was bashing Bush."

You went on to say:

What I find hypocritical, and so typically liberal, is that Kerry has never once condemned the venom spewers like Michael Moore or the Hollywood left who constantly slander Bush.

The problem here is:

1. You don't cite comprable examples (given that the SBVT ads appear to be based on fabrication, I challenge you to come out with any out and out lies made by anti-Bush factions).

2. You don't show how Kerry has any connection with Moore (who originally endorsed Wesley Clark) or "Hollywood" and their political viewpoints, whereas the Swift Boat group has close ties with Bush and the G.O.P.

So, you then opt to fall back on Kerry is into "censoring" the (deliberately misleading) ads, which of course isn't the case since the accusations within the ads are, once again, falsehoods.

Finally, you try to paint a picture of Kerry as inconsistent in his views, which, as I demonstrated, applies to both candidates.

So really: what is your point here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You don't cite comprable examples (given that the SBVT ads appear to be based on fabrication, I challenge you to come out with any out and out lies made by anti-Bush factions).

Appear? Hmmm, when they are proven lies then it would certainly be time to correct it. Right now it is 'he said she said' and there is no lie for anybody to deal with here. Kerry can do all he wants to stop these ads just as he has tried to stop the book.

2. You don't show how Kerry has any connection with Moore (who originally endorsed Wesley Clark) or "Hollywood" and their political viewpoints, whereas the Swift Boat group has close ties with Bush and the G.O.P.

Close ties? Close only counts in horseshoes and handgenades. They are affiliated or they are not hence the statement is meaningless. One of the big big stars at the DPC in Boston was Moore, you know, the guy who stretched truth and distorted through liberal editing and timeline falicy his point that Bush is an idiot. He is not in Kery's pocket anymore than these Swift Boat guys are in Bush's.

So, you then opt to fall back on Kerry is into "censoring" the (deliberately misleading) ads, which of course isn't the case since the accusations within the ads are, once again, falsehoods.

Kerry is trying to censor the ads which have not been proved false. I imagine when this whole thing dies down he can get a case together and trie his luck. Heck, he'll have Edwards to help him as they may have a lot of time on their hands. Right now though, Bush has said that he thinks Kerry is a hero and doesn't think the ads are appropriate even though he has suffered attacks for the past three and a half years that no president should ever have to suffer through. How many times have I read here people like yourself calling him evil, stupid, lying, greedy, doing God's work, finishing Daddys job and on and on?

In all, what Kerry is going through here is nothing to what Bush has put up with during a very difficult time over the past few years. Maybe he should run on his senate record instead of a four month stint in Nam. If it's illegal, get a judge and shut them down. Just like the Republicans ... wait a minute, they didn't do it. They just watched Michael Moore make a propaganda piece that fabricated a whole anti Bush feeling on out of sync editing and misleading rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn

Sorry to bore you. Feel free to flee and take the condescention to another forum.

1. You don't cite comprable examples (given that the SBVT ads appear to be based on fabrication, I challenge you to come out with any out and out lies made by anti-Bush factions).

Ahem. Where do I begin? You know that's a foolish challenge. Are you going to back up the claims the Bush was himself responsible for the 911 attacks and actually orchestrated them, that Bush never served in the National Guard, that his "daddy" got him into college, that he recieved failing grades from Harvard ... on and on we can go. You could also check out the book Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man if you'd like to debunk any other lies you on the left love to believe so much. Or for a litany of credible people bringing to light the lies of Michael Moore go toMoore Lies

BTW I consider the fact that Moore was invited to sit beside Jimmy Carter during the DNC to be viewed on national television, a pretty good indicator that those high up have ties to Moore and like what he's saying.

Finally, you try to paint a picture of Kerry as inconsistent in his views

Not really, politicians are renowned for changing their minds (however Kerry takes the cake but that's for another day). My contention was the hypocrisy in Kerry for saying that military records shouldn't be an issue than goes after Bush for it then blames Bush for an unaffiliated group for questioning his own record.

So the point, once again, is that Kerry can support those 527 groups and even throw the mud with the best of them but he cries like a baby when the mud comes flying back. As an interesting sidenote ABC news reported tonight that 527 groups for Kerry outnumber Bush groups 14-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I can't help but point out that the US puts on a great show. These two guys going at each other is entertaining.

So far, I think Bush is doing better because it looks as if he's above the fray. It's the Swifties who are doing the dirty sniping. Kerry should get someone else to take them on.

Also, it seems that Vietnam is still the no-luck, quagmire. The name itself spells trouble for Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kerry can do all he wants to stop these ads just as he has tried to stop the book.

The ads have stopped running anyway. that's why Bush finally came out against them.

He is not in Kery's pocket anymore than these Swift Boat guys are in Bush's.

Ah, but there's certainly a convincing case to be made that the SBVT are Bush campaign mouthpieces, certainly moreso than saying More is affiliated with Kerry because he went to the convention.

he has suffered attacks for the past three and a half years that no president should ever have to suffer through. How many times have I read here people like yourself calling him evil, stupid, lying, greedy, doing God's work, finishing Daddys job and on and on?

*cough* Ken Starr*cough*

They just watched Michael Moore make a propaganda piece that fabricated a whole anti Bush feeling on out of sync editing and misleading rationale

F911 Facts

Ahem. Where do I begin? You know that's a foolish challenge. Are you going to back up the claims the Bush was himself responsible for the 911 attacks and actually orchestrated them, that Bush never served in the National Guard, that his "daddy" got him into college, that he recieved failing grades from Harvard ... on and on we can go. You could also check out the book Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man if you'd like to debunk any other lies you on the left love to believe so much. Or for a litany of credible people bringing to light the lies of Michael Moore go toMoore Lies

BTW I consider the fact that Moore was invited to sit beside Jimmy Carter during the DNC to be viewed on national television, a pretty good indicator that those high up have ties to Moore and like what he's saying.

What's the connection with the Kerry campaign? Let's see some proof.

My contention was the hypocrisy in Kerry for saying that military records shouldn't be an issue than goes after Bush for it then blames Bush for an unaffiliated group for questioning his own record.

I think it's pretty clear that calling the SBVT "unaffiliated" is a stretch, base don the group's personal and financial ties to the Bush family and campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I actually agree with much of what you have said IMR, I do not accept that Kerry is a left-winger. IMO, the only left candidate was Dean. The Democrats elected Kerry simply because they thought he could beat Bush and their opportunism will eventually burn them. I do not think I have ever heard Kerry specifically say he would end the war in Iraq and bring the soldiers home any time soon.

In our last election, I actually thought we had a pretty good slate of candidates, I cannot say as much for the US this time. This is a very sorry lot. The simple fact that they are spending more time arguing about what happened in Vietnam 30 years ago and not what is happening in the US right now is enough to show that. If Layton, Martin and Harper spent the majority of their time discussing Korea rather than health care, municipalities, the economy etc. I would be really pissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ads have stopped running anyway. that's why Bush finally came out against them.

He came out against them because they stopped, that's interesting logic.

What's the connection with the Kerry campaign? Let's see some proof.

Let's see some real proof of your outlandish claims that Bush is responsible for the SBVT rather than friend of a friend BS.

don the group's personal and financial ties to the Bush family and campaign.

Yes the Bush family and their ties to everyone evil in the world. Them and the Corleones eh?

*cough* Ken Starr*cough*

Ya good point, since we're talking about honesty in politics and you seem to think Kerry and the Dems are rosey let's talk about your lawyer type of honesty: "I never had sexual relations with that woman"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He came out against them because they stopped, that's interesting logic.

Makes perfect sense: come out after the damage has already been done and try to grab the moral high ground and distance the campaign from the emerging evidence of connections with the SBVT.

Let's see some real proof of your outlandish claims that Bush is responsible for the SBVT rather than friend of a friend BS.

Bush Campaign Drops Swift Boat Ad Figure

The Bush campaign said late Saturday that it dismissed an adviser on veterans issues after learning that he is part of an independent group that has been running anti-Kerry ads.

The Bush campaign said Kenneth Cordier, who appears in a new advertisement to be aired by the anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, will no longer serve in his voluntary position on Bush's veterans steering committee.

Yes the Bush family and their ties to everyone evil in the world. Them and the Corleones eh?

Fatuous statements support your position...how, exactly?

Ya good point, since we're talking about honesty in politics and you seem to think Kerry and the Dems are rosey let's talk about your lawyer type of honesty: "I never had sexual relations with that woman"

Pfft. My comment was in response to KK's allegation that poor Georgie Bush is the most put-upon and persecuted president in history. But when you contrast the treatment Bush has got with the way the G.O.P tried to crucify Clinton, it's plain that Bush has, for the bulk of his tenure, been given a free ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when you contrast the treatment Bush has got with the way the G.O.P tried to crucify Clinton, it's plain that Bush has, for the bulk of his tenure, been given a free ride.

Get real. Clinton's woes were titilationg and that's about it. All in all, I think he was a damm good president, better than Bush to tell the truth. I liked him as he had class and was a real charmer, not like his wooden headed buddy Gore. He got the shaft on that impeachment thing as he never should have lied but then again, nobody should have asked the question.

Bush on the other hand has movies made about him, books and worldwide demonstrations portraying him as Hitler and killing thusands so that he can get a few extra bucks in the bank.

Moore's movie portrays him as incompetent, not a womanizer, a probable coward who rides around on his rich dads money while he sends your kids to war not weak on defence.

No, I would say that Bush has taken a lot, as an example look at the ranting of Ceasar on this forum. Look at the books written by the physciatrist saying he is nuts, the stories going back to when he was twelve and shooting frogs in Texas, all used by the Left to show he is a degenerate phycopath and a posible serial killer. I doubt Clinton was ever labelled that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get real. Clinton's woes were titilationg and that's about it. All in all, I think he was a damm good president, better than Bush to tell the truth. I liked him as he had class and was a real charmer, not like his wooden headed buddy Gore. He got the shaft on that impeachment thing as he never should have lied but then again, nobody should have asked the question.

THnaks for proving my point. Clinton, for nothing mor ethan having his knob twiddled, was impeached, dragged through the mud in both the mainstream and right-wing press, even accused (by some) of murder...the works, all because of a well-funded and organized effort by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife and Republican operatives to smear the president.

Bush on the other hand has movies made about him, books and worldwide demonstrations portraying him as Hitler and killing thusands so that he can get a few extra bucks in the bank.

Certainly Bush has been a target since the election fiasco. But, up ntil relatively recently, He was the mainstream's golden boy: untouchable largely due to post-9-11 "patriotic" sentiment peddled by the right that deemed any opposition to the president treason.

Moore's movie portrays him as incompetent, not a womanizer, a probable coward who rides around on his rich dads money while he sends your kids to war not weak on defence.

And? I think an incompetent scoin of a wealthy family who owes much of his success to said familial connections is an accurate description, just as Clinton could be accurately described as a weasly womanizer.

I doubt Clinton was ever labelled that.

Again, right-wing conspiracy theories abound Clinton had Vince Foster murdered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton's woes were titilationg and that's about it.
I disagree. Clinton had a special prosecutor breathing down his neck for the better part of his second term. Can you imagine the amount of time Clinton had to devote to preparing affidavits, reviewing document requests, figuring out what to say in testimony. (Please don't tell me that he had people in his office to handle all this.) The guy was impeached for God's sakes.

Bush has just faced the usual vilification of most Presidents.

I flipped through the Swift web site and from what I can see, most of these guys don't like Kerry because of what he said when he came back from Vietnam. IOW, most don't really say that Kerry's a liar about his service - rather, they don't want him as President because he pulled, in their eyes, a Jane Fonda.

The Swifties are partisan. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't anybody talking about Cheney and Haliburton.

I mean, the Republicans were harassing Clinton on Travelgate...

but you look at Haliburton... it's unbelievable. The company admitted to commiting fraud while Cheney was CEO, plus all those contracts from Iraq that were untendered....

It's just incredible.

And these are facts, not dirt.

And they're being stonewalled.

Whatever.

Republicans are just good at carpet bombing people. Look at what they did to McCain, or how they portrayed that triple amputee.

The ppl behind SBVFT are pretty sick, in my opinion, for doing what they're doing.

The SBVFT are no better.

Moveon.org is just as bad.

-------------------------------------------------

I think Kerry needs to start fighting back, and fighting back hard. As Clinton says, it's not going negative when you're responding to a republican smear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting to see some meat here. I mean, it's on ething for someone to simply say Bush is incompetent, or other debateable conclusions

It's another thing to lie outright, as many of the accusations leveled by the SBVFT (none of which, it should again be pointed out, actually served with Kerry) seem to be.

I flipped through the Swift web site and from what I can see, most of these guys don't like Kerry because of what he said when he came back from Vietnam. IOW, most don't really say that Kerry's a liar about his service - rather, they don't want him as President because he pulled, in their eyes, a Jane Fonda.

Yeah, he had the gall to accuse American troops of committing atrocities, which apparently upset the vets more than the atrocities they committed did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, he had the gall to accuse American troops of committing atrocities, which apparently upset the vets more than the atrocities they committed did.

I don't doubt that many war crimes were committed on both sides during that war.

Kerry was well within his rights to call a spade a spade when he came home.

It's not going negative when it's true.

Moreover, pointing out Kerry's many connections to 527 groups doesn't make Bush any less guilty. If anything, it makes them both all the more dirty.

I think Bush's only real issue is that Kerry is fighting back. Bush certainly wasn't distancing himself from attacks from the same group of funders when they called ppl in Georgia and told them that McCain had a black son; or spread the story that by being captured, McCain had dishonoured his country.

Bush can certainly tolerate the feces when it's chucked at others, or at arabs in American prisons, but he certainly can't take it.

They're both in the wrong, but since Bush et al won't stop, neither should Kerry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War crimes are FACT...remember the 71 hearings?

Kerry's message was not to harm the vets but to go after the admin that put them there and bring an end to the war...he has NOTHING to be ashamed of or to apologize for....The swift boat liars and their spin

have been tied to Bush already by 2 of his band resigning

over the connection...Same B.S. different election..For me the fact that Kerry was in a war and protested that same war tells me that Kerry will exhaust other options before he would send men to lay their life on the line....That it would be the last option not the FIRST...it tells me he is not a ready fire president like the one we already have...that he would take aim because he knows what is at stake and involved....

If Kerry was in office today...I believe we would not have derailed our focus and we would still be devoting our time and effort in Afghanistan on the real war on terrorism

interesting article...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5086647/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted on this board, repeatedly, that Bush is soft on the real war on terror.

The problem with the Dems, as I see it, is that they're very similar to French Socialists circa 1933.

They would rather rationalize the Nazi's than face the facts.

You gotta crush terror.

Live and let live policy simply won't work in this case, because just like the Nazi's, these Islamists don't believe that we have the right ot practise the religion of our choice.

(And oddly enough, these Islamists share that value with some Christian Fundamentalists, who believe that everybody in the United States should abide by their religion.)

If I were an American, I'd conclude that there's nobody to vote for.

Bush is soft on Terror, worse, imperilling the whole war for selfish reasons. (Iraq).

And Kerry and the Dems are just as bad, because they want to rationalize the situation and square the circle.

Bah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asked if he believed that he and Kerry "served on the same level of heroism," Bush replied, "No, I don't. I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in harm's way and I wasn't."

Bush Interview with NBC

This is called taking the high road, which the candidate should always do. Let the campaign people take the shots. [i think that was one of Harper's serious errors in the last campaign.]

-----

The problem with the Dems, as I see it, is that they're very similar to French Socialists circa 1933.
I agree with your idea but it was hardly just the French Socialists (although they werre certainly in the forefront).
I've posted on this board, repeatedly, that Bush is soft on the real war on terror.
Here I would disagree - but more about the word "soft". First, he faces limits imposed by the American public and other countries. Second, what is the guy supposed to do? But Bush seems to lack the finesse. (Have Yeltsin/Putin been any better in Chechnya?) Thrashing about seems to be the best we can do for the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...