Repub Ideas did NOT win, LIES did

[FinnAgain]

@Stoid

And here’s an even more careful and comprehensive response to the “Sad American” (who I am increasingly convinced does not exist. “Be nice to me and I’ll vote for you!” good grief.)

http://www.fromasadderamerican.blogspot.com/

I wonder if Rove hasn’t got himself a blog…

It’s just unreal…

-Bush is going in the wrong direction and I oppose nearly everything he does, but it’s a sure thing, so I’ll vote for him.
-Some liberals were, like, way mean dude! So I voted for a candidate I don’t support.
-etc, etc, etc…

Why on earth should we not call these people morons?
People like her have failed our Republic.
Fucking morons.

[Stoid]

@FinnAgain

I wonder if Rove hasn’t got himself a blog…

It’s just unreal…

Exactly. The more closely and carefully you study what she said, the more obvious it becomes that it’s the biggest trollery every perpetrated on a blog. I simply cannot believe that anyone could truly be that irrational.

[FinnAgain]

@Stoid

Exactly. The more closely and carefully you study what she said, the more obvious it becomes that it’s the biggest trollery every perpetrated on a blog. I simply cannot believe that anyone could truly be that irrational.

Hell, she was more ‘on message’ than many republican talking heads I’ve seen.

How on earth do you even win someone’s vote like hers?
Sing happy songs and tell her how awesome she is for holding such massive cognitive dissonance in her head with nary a complication?

I mean, fuck… this gal has great selective attention paying skills…

The dems are mean and nasty, but, um… all the republican thugs and attack dogs (thinking of you Coulter) are just peachy?

gah… just makes me sick…

Either she’s a shill, in which case it’s disgusting… or this is really how much of America thinks, and we are sooooooo screwed.
Fighting ignorance indeed.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@ElvisL1ves

Right. You can see the difference, can’t you? Are all lies the same for you? Is “Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks and we have to get back at him” on the same level as “No, honey, that skirt doesn’t make your butt look big?” Please.

I didn’t know that Bush asked Kerry if his butt looked big. Well, you learn something new every day.

@ElvisL1ves

No, it’s ridiculous to think she said anything more than that he was clearly the superior choice.

Well, let’s look at what she actually said, shall we?

@Stoid

Bush lied, Kerry didn’t.

Seems to me she said he didn’t lie.

@ElvisL1ves

(NB: You put an extra “n” in there - to “cannonize” someone would involve the use of a cannon, and on second thought maybe she did mean that).

:smack:

@ElvisL1ves

Then help us out here: What was your favorite Kerry lie? What consequences did or would it have in the real world?

Bricker has laid it out better than I could ever hope to. Start at post #103.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@elucidator

If I misunderstood you, LA, you have my sincere apology, Lord knows, I wouldn’t want to falsely accuse a Libertarian of being aligned with the Forces of Darkness, than with the Army of Determined Irrelevance.

Thank you, apology accepted. It’s happened more than once here, so if I snapped back at you, I apologize as well.

@elucidator

I oft heard it posed as an accusation, that one like myself was more voting against Bush than for Kerry. In my own instance, one-hunnerd percent true. As you probably gleaned from my posts, I think GeeDubya sub-optimal.

You think Bush sucks? I had no idea!

@elucidator

My wrath is better targeted on those who voted for, rather than those who merely did not vote against. You may be comforted by taking a position of principled pointlessness. In truth, I cannot really understand why. But your right to make such a decision, I infer, is as sacred to you as it is to me. That’s a good enough start.

I live in Virginia. If I had thought that anyone other than the Republicans had a chance at winning its electoral votes, I might have voted differently.

@elucidator

Now, if I can only convince you that Libertarianism is a political philosophy wandering about aimlessly in search of a purpose…

Yeah, it is. I think it was Siege who said, “Just once, I’d like to vote for the greater of two goods.” Until that becomes a reality, I’m probably going to vote Libertarian.

@elucidator

And, as well, that if you need targets to vent contempt upon, there are far, far fatter targets than Stoidella. She is oftimes wrong, but she is more right than she is wrong, and power is in the grip of those who are terribly, terribly wrong.

I disagree. Stoid isn’t much more than a Reeder in training lately. Until she stops posting “All Republicans have poopy pants!” threads, I reserve the right to respond as I see fit.

[World_Eater]

@Bricker

I agree that the “final reality” is yet to be shown.

We told people before the invasion we were not convinced of the existence of WMD, yet they invaded. We told people during the war, if he had the shit he would have used it, yet people still think he had it. We told people after a year of not finding diddly, “see he had no WMD”, yet they said “nope they’re there, we just need to find it.” *To this day we have found nothing, yet people still think, “oh it was shipped or buried, or he ate it before they captured him”.

Must we wait till the bitter end until every insane argument people can conjure up has been exhausted? Do we need to literally arrive at final reality in order for people to get it? Isn’t it possible to see we’re headed in the general direction of “final reality”, and to make the conclusion it’s probably true before we’ve arrived?

How long do people need to realize lies are lies?

[World_Eater]

Coding fucked up because it’s Sunday and the Lord said 'tis ok.

[rjung]

@World Eater

How long do people need to realize lies are lies?

Far too long. Bush’s biggest supporters have been trained by years of right-wing insta-pundits into believing the most outrageous bullstuff.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Lord Ashtar

I didn’t know that Bush asked Kerry if his butt looked big. Well, you learn something new every day.

I asked you directly if you think all lies are equivalent. Do you really think so, or are you just evading an uncomfortable revelation (that’s the default answer, btw)? Got a serious answer or are you willing to be dismissed as yet another bleater?

Seems to me she said he didn’t lie.

The topic is Bush’s war and its rationalizations. Kerry indeed did not lie about it, as she said. Bush most clearly and repeatedly has.

Bricker has laid it out better than I could ever hope to. Start at post #103.

That’s a reply from elucidator to Bill H, with which there is little to disagree, btw.

So whaddaya got? Anything you can put in complete sentences in your own words? Anything at all?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I said that Kerry lied. He claimed Bush had a secret plan to privitize Social Security and cut benefits by 30-45%, and I said the plan to privatize was NOT secret, that Bush was open about it, and that he had pleged NOT to cut benefits.

So your position is that, if Bush says it’s so, then it’s so, and anyone who expresses doubt about it is therefore conclusively a liar? You’re not off to a good start there, Chief.

What relevance does this have to any fact under dispute? He did not reject the panel’s findings. He did not approve the panel’s findings. He took no action whatsoever on the panel’s findings.

Nor do the panel’s findings mean jack shit if they disagree with what he already wants to do. The Iraq invasion is an example of that thought process. Do you know the meaning of the words “window dressing”?

Yes, he did, thus proving, as I said, that the plan was not secret. John Kerry said the plan was secret. I said it wasn’t secret, and now you’ve just said it wasn’t secret either. So if John Kerry said it was secret, he lied.

You’re a little too desperate to prove your case, Counselor. There are public, before-Election-Day, vague statements of intent, and there are real, detailed plans that don’t get exposed until a little later. But it takes a pretty pure innocence about the political process to think that the public statement of intent is the entire plan.

But that study did not address the point you made above: that this could be paid for without cutting benefits by raising the deficit. Bush’s plan was not to cut benefits, and John Kerry knew this.

Again with what Bush says vs. what he’d have to do, as the numbers would force it to be.

The study did not address how Bush actually planned to pay for it; it assumed, falsely, that he’d pay for it within Social Security.

Either that, or raise taxes, something you also believe Bush won’t do, or go into further debt. There are only so many possibilities.

No. That never happened. Bush’s spokesman dismissed the benefits-cutting claim as false and baseless, because it was. The privatization was not dismissed, because it was true, and not secret.

Your absolute faith in the verity of these people would be touching if it came from, oh, a six-year-old. From a putative adult, it’s just sad. But the rock-bottom truth for you is that whatever Bush says is the truth, and that Kerry is a liar. Unfortunately, the facts, and simple common sense, don’t support that desired statement of faith.

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

@Bricker

I said that Kerry lied. He claimed Bush had a secret plan to privitize Social Security and cut benefits by 30-45%, and I said the plan to privatize was NOT secret, that Bush was open about it, and that he had pleged NOT to cut benefits.

So your position is that, if Bush says it’s so, then it’s so, and anyone who expresses doubt about it is therefore conclusively a liar? You’re not off to a good start there, Chief.

We don’t need to depend on Bush’s word. The first part is easily verifiable. Kerry claimed the plan to privatize was a “secret plan.” But Bush was quite open about this plan, and I have previously provided a citation for that.

Now, the cutting benefits part is a pledge for the future. Kerry claimed that Bush planned to cut benefits 30-45%. Bush denies this, and still does. It’s true that Bush’s denial is evidence here… but how can Bush prove a negative? Apart from pledging he won’t cut benefits 30-45%, what sort of proof can be offered to make this true?

Kery didn’t “express doubt.” Kerry’s ad definitively said that Bush would cut benefits 30-45%, and that he had a secret plan to privatize. But the plan wasn’t secret.

As the person making the claim, Kerry (and now you) must provide the evidence. If you’re saying, “Well, you can’t prove it ISN’T true,” that’s simply the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

• Rick

[rjung]

@Bricker

It’s true that Bush’s denial is evidence here… but how can Bush prove a negative?

The same way he wanted Saddam to prove he destroyed those WMDs he didn’t have?

[FinnAgain]

@rjung

The same way he wanted Saddam to prove he destroyed those WMDs he didn’t have?

No!
That’s totally different!
51%!
There are more of us!
That makes us right!
Bless The Glorious Leader!

[devilsknew]

@Waverly

I have to say you are [mostly] wrong here. Sure, there was fear mongering, character assignation, and other Rove Election Marketing techniques, but you are not giving the conservative / republican voters enough credit. Most of them knew exactly what they were voting for; it just so happens that you don’t understand it, or them, on any level.

You believe you live in a cosmopolitan, socially tolerant America. Your Americans are diplomats and consensus builders. Your America is imaginary.

The real America has a concept of Christian values that it holds dear, and is a bit xenophobic and intolerant. Real Americans are more concerned about the erosion of values than the budget or trade deficits. Real Americans [inset tongue in cheek – sorta] have bigger than average belt buckles and listen to Willie Nelson on the radios of the pickups.

I’m disappointed, but I cannot fault the majority for getting what they wish for one bit. I suggest you do the same.

You know, I could say a lot of bullshit to match yours, but the truth is not this. Nor likely mine. This fuckin’ spin is so stupid it deserves nothing more than a big, FUCK YOU!! and stop watching FOX!
This is the new

[Talon_Karrde]

:dubious:
My anti-Bush comrades, I am the ghost of SDMB past. Let me take you back to around last April…
The Abu-Ghraib thing had gotten out, and outraged America was. The conservatives were quick to say “Well, what Saddam did was worse!”
You responded with a resonant “Bullshit!”, and rightfully so. “Just because of what one person did, it doesn’t make our actions less atrocious!”

Now let’s come back to the present. I see people utterly dismissing lies that Kerry has told because they aren’t as bad. This was after it was claimed that he didn’t lie at all.
I think you need to remember what was said last April, even when it’s your side that has committed the wrongdoings.

[Bricker]

@rjung

@Bricker

It’s true that Bush’s denial is evidence here… but how can Bush prove a negative?

The same way he wanted Saddam to prove he destroyed those WMDs he didn’t have?

What is the relevance of this rejoinder to the subject of whether Kerry’s ad lied about Bush’s plans for Social Security?

[Bricker]

@FinnAgain

No!
That’s totally different!
51%!
There are more of us!
That makes us right!
Bless The Glorious Leader!

If this is the extent of your analytical approach, then I’d suggest getting ready for another round of tears and recriminations on November 8th, 2005.

[Bricker]

@Bricker

If this is the extent of your analytical approach, then I’d suggest getting ready for another round of tears and recriminations on November 8th, 2005.

Uh… where some local and gubernatorial races will be decided. Also November 2006.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

We don’t need to depend on Bush’s word. The first part is easily verifiable. Kerry claimed the plan to privatize was a “secret plan.” But Bush was quite open about this plan, and I have previously provided a citation for that.

You still don’t get it. Your position is that, if Bush says it, he means it and will act accordingly. You’ve heard of “campaign rhetoric”, haven’t you? Kerry was saying that Bush wasn’t presenting his entire true plan. But that makes him the liar, in your filtered eyes.

It’s true that Bush’s denial is evidence here… but how can Bush prove a negative? Apart from pledging he won’t cut benefits 30-45%, what sort of proof can be offered to make this true?

His not acting to cut benefits 30-45%. Remains to be seen, but there’s this little matter of credibility, isn’t there? But, since Bush hasn’t done it yet, you conclude Kerry is a liar.

As the person making the claim, Kerry (and now you) must provide the evidence. If you’re saying, “Well, you can’t prove it ISN’T true,” that’s simply the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

We went over that sort of “reasoning” with the WMD stuff, and you still can’t make yourself accept that Bush lied about it. Your conclusion that Kerry is lying, not Bush, is derivable from nothing but the jerk of your knee.

[FinnAgain]

@Bricker

If this is the extent of your analytical approach

You don’t deal well with (albeit heavy handed) satire very well, do you?

Oh, and not to put words into rjung’s mouth, but I’d say the relevance is that you’re being selective in your application of logic.