http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040826-3.html
The word “attack” does not appear anywhere in the press conference, which, of course, was conducted by the president’s official spokesman.
I think I’ve demonstrated my point well enough. Now if you have some sort of Bush statement that says he only wants to ban “attack ads” and not other 527 issue ads, I would welcome you bringing that statement to the table.
You’re just adorable when you have no earthly idea what in hell you’re talking about. Not that I’d take you home, or anything.
I can’t speak for Shayna, but I doubt that there’s a single thing written about you anywhere that would make me vote for you as emperor. Besides, how does one elect an emperor? Is it like in the latest Star Wars movies where a queen steps down to become a senator?
Not at all faulty. I have consistently argued against a veteran’s status litmus test in politics. The only sane way to vote is to vote according to the issues at hand.
If we were to vote only for war heroes in American elections, Bob Dole should have won in 1996. Remember, he’s a paralyzed veteran and Bronze Star awardee. Likewise, George H. W. Bush should have won in 1992, being a winner of the Distinguished Flying Cross and the youngest combat flyer in the Navy in WWII. Their opponent, Bill Clinton, avoided the Vietnam-era draft.
Obviously, the American electorate wasn’t swayed by this argument. John Kerry should be wary of this fact.
Um, I’m not sure that you have demonstrated your point. Perhaps if you could show how Kerry would rid the world of all known diseases, I might understand your point better. 
Seriously, though, pervert is just using the “Columbo” technique. Ask question after question after question, and pretend not to understand anything. Of course, on TV, Columbo always ends up with a “gotcha”. Sadly, that doesn’t ever seem to work out for pervert.
Shadowy. Definitely shadowy.
This ‘ad’ for Bush is definitely ‘shadowy’ in the extreme - would a ban on 527 ads. shut this site down too?
http://www.georgewbush.org/spots/index.asp
[Sorry, but being a Brit, I don’t know about these technicalities]
So? Does that make them wrong? I have lots and lots of eloquently glowing letters of recommendation from previous employers, customers, etc. Lots of flowery language and lots of pumping up. While I’m humbled by the opinions expressed in them, there’s not a word in them that’s untrue. And I don’t believe for a single moment that there’s an untrue word about John Kerry in his reports, either.
HA! HAhahahahaha!
So which is it; are they over-inflated or are they merely mediocre? You can’t have it both ways, dear.
If you could show me anywhere in that post where I said I was voting for John Kerry because he’s a war hero, you might have some kind of point. I said I came to like John Kerry based on what I read about him in his military reports, but that’s not even remotely the same as saying I’m voting for him because he’s a “war hero.” The qualities I was impressed by don’t mention the word ‘hero’ anywhere, and are universal in their applicability outside of a war environment. I’ll remind you:
I further went on to outline all of the ISSUES I agree with John Kerry on. And I concluded by saying I wanted to be able to respect my president and not expect him to LIE to me. So I’ll thank you to refrain from your smug attempt to call me out on some perceived hypocracy that doesn’t exist.
No, no, you’re not keeping up. See, when it says “absolutely stupendous”, it means “good”, but when it says “really teriffic”, that only means “mediocre”.
OTOH, if it had said “showed up for dental examination”, that would have meant “leader-of-the-free-world-and-defender-against-terrrrists material”.
P.S. I met John Kerry last night. I’m still kindof reeling from the experience (he’s TALL!!), but I’ll try to post about it later. I have to leave for work now, but here’s one image… John Kerry.
I’m not having it both ways. You’re just misrepresenting what I wrote.
It’s overinflated language in a mediocre fitness report. To a civilian, it would look great. To people who know the system, though, it would look just like what it is, though, mediocre.
SQUEEE! That’s very cool and please give us not-so-fortunates a play-by-play!
And to make sure this post contributes to the debate, I give you some poll results from cnn.com :
Perhaps the Bush campaign isn’t quite as sneaky as they think they are. Now that the wind has shifted, perhaps Bush will come out and denounce the ads. (Of course, that requires him to learn from his mistake, so…).
The debunking continues: Thurlow contradicted. A crewman on Thurlow’s own boat says that yes, they were under fire the day the medals were won.
No offense Zoe but grow some testicles. If you’re a retired English teacher you shouldn’t need the glowing good graces of someone who is of a “youthful nature” in his writing style. Elucidator is creative with language but so is Snoop Doggy Dog. Enjoy his antics for what they are and treat it as the entertainment he intends it to be.
Then at least 6 percent are “confused” enough to think Bush is responsible for them *and * should denounce them *anyway * - unless by that they really mean he should apologize too, or simply cut the crap.
This thread isn’t going to make the record unless the loyalists come back and resume spreading lies, though.
So are you sating that the navy have a code to write reports in - where what they say actually means the opposite of what the words mean? This is a really bizarre notion - cite please!!
[QUOTE=minty green]
In case the disgusting hypocricy hasn’t yet registered for you, Bush’s “original position” in no way resembled a ban on issue ads. To that point, I draw the interested reader’s attention to Bush’s March 15, 2001 formal position statement on campaign finance reform, which clearly states that Dear Leader strongly supports issue ads and the organizations that produce them:
[quote]
President Bush believes democracy is first and foremost about the rights of individuals to express their views. He supports strengthening the role of individuals in the political process by: 1) updating the limits established more than two decades ago on individual giving to candidates and national parties; and 2) protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy. His original position in response to questions regarding the Swiftboat Vets. Happy? I always enjoy having to explain everything to you to as if I were on trial.
May your days be filled with lawyers.
Just so long as the expressions of those views aren’t counted too closely, anyway.
Source: The Oregonian
Democrats did it before.
Note Bob Kerrey response.
More on Kerrey superior attitude here
What a difference a single letter makes!
Not sure if that’s a Freudian slip that you think I implied he flip flopped on Vietnam.
I’ve never questioned his service to this date (I’ve deliberately held my tongue on the issue). His treasonous behavior after his service was not his objection to the war (a right of free speech that I support). It was the hearsay testimony against his fellow soldiers that I’m calling him on. he gave aid to the enemy in time of war. IMO he did this knowing the consequences. He may even have extended the war (indirectly) by politicizing it. We had the capacity to win the war but it was fought behind closed doors. I’m not going to debate that possibility because of the amount of research it would take but the premise is valid enough for consideration. What is not debatable is that he gave aid to the enemy in time of war.
It’s interesting that Kerry once told a reporter that he would never use his camera footage for political purposes (Bill Kelly-NY Times). If he had listened to his own gut feeling he would be not be dealing with this now. I maintain that his campaign manager screwed up by using his service to solve an image problem. If they are using the Clinton tactic (promoting a particular weakness as a strength) then it has to be done without any skeletons in his closet. If it was done because he had a poor showing with Veterans then the same rule applies. You can’t woo a group of people you turned against during a war without making amends. I’m guessing it was a little of both and they thought they could deal with any negative material that surfaced. Unfortunately they found out that 527 money doesn’t mean anything if a strong message can be floated. 250 vets slamming the Senator is a powerful image. It was an advertising coup that has rightly been compared to the Blair Witch Project. A sensational message gets a lot of exposure for very little money.
He already did a mia culpa years ago about his war crimes. He even wrote a book about it. There was only one reason for him to do this and that was to purge any skeletons in his closet as a precursor to run for President. Had he also apologized to the Veterans for his testimony he would be free-and-clear. He screwed up.
I predict that the Swiftboat Vets attack on Senator Kerry’s military record is part 1 of 2. It lays the groundwork for the Bush campaign. All they need to do is show Senator Kerry in action. They can start with pictures of his book “The New Soldier” and then read passages from it. FYI, don’t bother going to Amazon.com to see what the cover looks like because they leave the image out. And bring your visa card if you want to buy it. You might also look for the Doonsbury cartoon about Kerry back in 71. Even Trudeau picked up on his self-promoting media stunts.
