FarenHYPE 9/11

[theski]

Forgot to add this quote from Kerry

WHO WOULD HAVE EXPECTED the Washington Post to inflict real damage on John Kerry's faltering presidential campaign? Yet they have.

Here is the third paragraph from today's front-page article by Helen Dewar and Tom Ricks on Kerry's foreign policy record:


Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4suggy.asp

That doesnt sit real well with me.

[Darth Wong]

Only in mindless elephant-land can you say that Kerry is the most decisively and consistently liberal person in the entire government while simultaneously saying that he is inconsistent and indecisive and therefore hasn't shown leadership ability.

And they say that elephants have good memories ... it seems doubtful if one of them can say something without remembering that the previous sentence just contradicted it.

[theski]

Only in mindless elephant-land can you say that Kerry is the most decisively and consistently liberal person in the entire government while simultaneously saying that he is inconsistent and indecisive and therefore hasn't shown leadership ability.

And they say that elephants have good memories ... it seems doubtful if one of them can say something without remembering that the previous sentence just contradicted it.

I never said ..."decisively " I only commented on his voting record which is completely true.

and never said.."Inconsistant and indecisive" please show me where I did

[BoredShirtless]

Voting record...

Those aren't reasons. Can you please stop bullshitting around, and be straight with me? Again, WHICH VOTE REASONS MAKES HIM A LIBERAL WHORE? You can't just look at votes and go "ok, he's a crazy liberal". You have to look at the reasons FOR his votes because some votes serve other purposes not apparent in the actual vote question.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm
On Leadership.
That has to be shown.

So will you show it?

I believe that a challenger should have a plan if he claims his Ideas are better... again that is just me

What exactly are you looking for? Times and places for deploying troops? The number of troops? What level of detail are you looking for?

[Iceberg]

But are you disagreeing with the talking points....???

His voting record is the most liberal

You can't be the most liberal senator AND a flip-flopper.

He does not show any leadership, we even did a thread about that.

Link to thread? Or concrete examples in this one?

Yes you can

Only if you're a delusional twit. Being consistently ANYTHING is incompatible with being a flip-flopper.

Here is the why vote for Kerry thread. Other than Elfdart no one could seem to answer the question

Also Symmetry. But Elfdart covered all the cogent reasons (and they are all good reasons), so what reason was there for dozens of posts saying, "Hey, Elfy's right"? Compare to threads about why George Bush is a good president, which require dozens or hundreds of reposts, usually by the same four or five guys and cover the same set of talking points that require a tightly laid path of tortured logic to present a case for President Bush.

Go eat yer damn beans.

[Darth Wong]

I never said ..."decisively " I only commented on his voting record which is completely true.

So he voted without being able to come to a decision, yet he did so in a consistent fashion?

and never said.."Inconsistant and indecisive" please show me where I did

So what's your disproof of his leadership abilities relative to Monkeyboy then?

[Yarcamos]

These wankers and others like them are like fleas crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on their minds.

I'm confused. Why is Farenheit 9/11 OK but not FarenHype 9/11?

[theski]

I never said ..."decisively " I only commented on his voting record which is completely true.

So he voted without being able to come to a decision, yet he did so in a consistent fashion?

and never said.."Inconsistant and indecisive" please show me where I did

So what's your disproof of his leadership abilities relative to Monkeyboy then?

you cannot disprove leadership... and it is subjective. Just like you cannot prove he is a leader...

The voting recored is what it is... THe most liberal in the senate

[SirNitram]

It probably has to do with the very likely possibility that this Right wing hack job is nothing but strawmanning, nitpicking, and the occasional lie, like most of their responses to Moore. Honestly, they should learn to ignore him. The more they yell, the more credible he becomes in many people's eyes, because there's a controversy.

[theski]

You can't be the most liberal senator AND a flip-flopper.
Link to thread? Or concrete examples in this one?

Yes you can

Only if you're a delusional twit. Being consistently ANYTHING is incompatible with being a flip-flopper.

Here is the why vote for Kerry thread. Other than Elfdart no one could seem to answer the question

Also Symmetry. But Elfdart covered all the cogent reasons (and they are all good reasons), so what reason was there for dozens of posts saying, "Hey, Elfy's right"? Compare to threads about why George Bush is a good president, which require dozens or hundreds of reposts, usually by the same four or five guys and cover the same set of talking points that require a tightly laid path of tortured logic to present a case for President Bush.

Go eat yer damn beans.

DO you really want me to list ALL of Kerrys flip flops.... christ we have done this to death...??

Gonna sux when Bush wins and you know Dean could have beat him

[theski]

It probably has to do with the very likely possibility that this Right wing hack job is nothing but strawmanning, nitpicking, and the occasional lie, like most of their responses to Moore. Honestly, they should learn to ignore him. The more they yell, the more credible he becomes in many people's eyes, because there's a controversy.

Agreed Nitram.. It isnt going to change anyones minds.

[Darth Wong]

I never said ..."decisively " I only commented on his voting record which is completely true.

So he voted without being able to come to a decision, yet he did so in a consistent fashion?

and never said.."Inconsistant and indecisive" please show me where I did

So what's your disproof of his leadership abilities relative to Monkeyboy then?

you cannot disprove leadership... and it is subjective. Just like you cannot prove he is a leader...

In short, you're admitting that your second reason to vote for Bush is nothing more than unsubstantiated bullshit, and you finish by stating that I can't prove he's a leader even though I can, by simply citing the dictionary definition. He is the leader of the Democratic Party.

The voting recored is what it is... THe most liberal in the senate

Prove that "liberal" = "bad". I know that you assume it is as a matter of doctrine, but a bullshit assumption like that is hardly a good basis for selecting a national leader.

[SirNitram]

It probably has to do with the very likely possibility that this Right wing hack job is nothing but strawmanning, nitpicking, and the occasional lie, like most of their responses to Moore. Honestly, they should learn to ignore him. The more they yell, the more credible he becomes in many people's eyes, because there's a controversy.

Agreed Nitram.. It isnt going to change anyones minds.

Which is somewhat ironic, as Moore's rantings will at least cause people to go looking into things.

Hell, I had never heard of this guy before 2000.. Did he exist before them, or is he the crystallized fears of the Republican party?

[theski]

So he voted without being able to come to a decision, yet he did so in a consistent fashion? So what's your disproof of his leadership abilities relative to Monkeyboy then?

you cannot disprove leadership... and it is subjective. Just like you cannot prove he is a leader...

In short, you're admitting that your second reason to vote for Bush is nothing more than unsubstantiated bullshit, and you finish by stating that I can't prove he's a leader even though I can, by simply citing the dictionary definition. He is the leader of the Democratic Party.

The voting recored is what it is... THe most liberal in the senate

Prove that "liberal" = "bad". I know that you assume it is as a matter of doctrine, but a bullshit assumption like that is hardly a good basis for selecting a national leader.

Yes I said it before.... Its my opinion and I have said that from the begining..

And to you Liberal=good.... To me its Not so good.. just a matter of Ideology

[theski]

It probably has to do with the very likely possibility that this Right wing hack job is nothing but strawmanning, nitpicking, and the occasional lie, like most of their responses to Moore. Honestly, they should learn to ignore him. The more they yell, the more credible he becomes in many people's eyes, because there's a controversy.

Agreed Nitram.. It isnt going to change anyones minds.

Which is somewhat ironic, as Moore's rantings will at least cause people to go looking into things.

Hell, I had never heard of this guy before 2000.. Did he exist before them, or is he the crystallized fears of the Republican party?

He actually had a Tv SHow and it all started with his film.."Roger and Me"

[Darth Wong]

And to you Liberal=good.... To me its Not so good.. just a matter of Ideology

That's a worthless bullshit retort and you know it. You should pick a position on any given issue based on whether it makes sense, not whether it's "liberal" or not. Do not accuse me of sharing your knee-jerk doctrinaire "pick a side and stick with it" methods.

[SirNitram]

He actually had a Tv SHow and it all started with his film.."Roger and Me"

And we only heard about him when he started getting mudslung by the Right.. Which made people investigate what the fuss was about.. Now he's a big name. Behold, the Right Propaganda Machine's nemesis: Itself.

[theski]

And to you Liberal=good.... To me its Not so good.. just a matter of Ideology

That's a worthless bullshit retort and you know it. You should pick a position on any given issue based on whether it makes sense, not whether it's "liberal" or not. Do not accuse me of sharing your knee-jerk doctrinaire "pick a side and stick with it" methods.

Ok Mike I will play... You give me a "Conservative" idea or policy that you agree with and I will give you a liberal one, because I think you are as much of a knee jerk liberal as you claim I am a conservative

[theski]

He actually had a Tv SHow and it all started with his film.."Roger and Me"

And we only heard about him when he started getting mudslung by the Right.. Which made people investigate what the fuss was about.. Now he's a big name. Behold, the Right Propaganda Machine's nemesis: Itself.

are you lumping Bowling for Columbine into that??

[SirNitram]

He actually had a Tv SHow and it all started with his film.."Roger and Me"

And we only heard about him when he started getting mudslung by the Right.. Which made people investigate what the fuss was about.. Now he's a big name. Behold, the Right Propaganda Machine's nemesis: Itself.

are you lumping Bowling for Columbine into that??

Yea. Never heard of him before that. When I began investigating who knew about him, I got alot of 'Oh, bowling for columbine guy'. And nothing else. This suggests he was an unknown before he decided to attack the traditionally Right Wing position of 'Guns good'(Oversimplification, duh. But it is hardly news that the Right Wing is the one that defends the right to bear arms.)

[theski]

And we only heard about him when he started getting mudslung by the Right.. Which made people investigate what the fuss was about.. Now he's a big name. Behold, the Right Propaganda Machine's nemesis: Itself.

are you lumping Bowling for Columbine into that??

Yea. Never heard of him before that. When I began investigating who knew about him, I got alot of 'Oh, bowling for columbine guy'. And nothing else. This suggests he was an unknown before he decided to attack the traditionally Right Wing position of 'Guns good'(Oversimplification, duh. But it is hardly news that the Right Wing is the one that defends the right to bear arms.)

Good point... he had a run at big Biz with Roger and Me then faded and then Bowling brought out the witch hunt..

Just like the Left helping Ann Coulter sell a lot of books

[Iceberg]

OK, Ski:

Gun Control. I think the Left's typical (in the United States) take on gun control is wasteful, hazardous, and does nothing to reduce the amount of violent crime while making it more difficult to legitimately purchase firearms. There are effective gun control schemes in other countries, if we must implement gun control we should look at why theirs works and why ours have always failed.

[theski]

OK, Ski:

Gun Control. I think the Left's typical (in the United States) take on gun control is wasteful, hazardous, and does nothing to reduce the amount of violent crime while making it more difficult to legitimately purchase firearms. There are effective gun control schemes in other countries, if we must implement gun control we should look at why theirs works and why ours have always failed.

Ok.. Welfare is a needed part of a Governments committment to its people. There should always be a safety net in place for those who cannot support themselves

[The Kernel]

The voting recored is what it is... THe most liberal in the senate

*sigh*, there are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. The flaw with looking at Kerry's voting record in the first place is:

1) Most votes are on giant bills with hundreds or thousands of provisions which a person might vote against because they don't like ONE of these items. This is how Bush got all of his "defense cut votes" out of Kerry's record as well as his tax hikes.

2) You haven't established a criteria for what makes his vote the most liberal in the Senate.

3) In 2003, Kerry missed a lot of votes because he was working on the run up to his campaign, thus he was only there for a handful of votes. If you want a representative sample, why look at this particular year? He has plenty more to chose from. Oh that's right, it's because the GOP spin machine told you to isn't it?

Now, some other points about how "liberal" Kerry is:

1) Kerry is a hell of a lot more moderate then Bush. This is simply a fact. I don't see Kerry openly pandering to a lot of left wing extremists whereas that's pretty much ALL Bush has been doing the past four years.

2) If reelected, Bush is going to pack the SCOTUS with more Scalias. If Kerry makes the appointments, he's going to have to push through moderates with a GOP controlled Congress (but OTOH, it's not like a Dem has ever appointed a dangerous left winger to the SCOTUS).

3) Gridlock in government is going to reduce spending. If you are a fiscal conservative, this point should be very important for you.

4) Kerry does not have anyone like Tom DeLay fighting a war in Congress for him in order to make the Congressional body the White House's lap dogs. Furthermore, Bush hasn't stopped there and now he wants to take control of the third branch of government with all his talk about "activist judges". We need balance for fuck's sake, not one party ruling all three branches.

[Chardok]

BUT KERRY MISSED UBERDAYS AND UBERVOTES!!!! WAAAAAH!!!!!

While the president of the United States is never completely on vacation, most commanders-in-chief manage to enjoy a respite from the daily grind during their stay the White House. George W. Bush seems to have taken this to the extreme early in his tenure as president. A humorous, fake resume for Bush suggests that he set the record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history -- a bit of an exaggeration, but still cause for some teasing.
According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation. Although to be fair, much of this time is classified as a "working vacation."

Bush isn't the first president to get away from his work. George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days at Camp David and in Kennebunkport. Ronald Reagan spent 335 days at or en route to his Santa Barbara, California, ranch during his eight years in office. Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter took the least days off -- only 79 days, which he usually spent at his home in Georgia. That's less than three weeks a year, which is closer to the average American's paid time off of 13 days per year.

What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS News. A former staffer noted Clinton was such a workaholic that "it almost killed Clinton to take one-week vacations during August." In 2000, Clinton cut his summer vacation short to just three days, so he and his wife could concentrate on her Senate race and fundraising for Democrats. While we couldn't find the exact tally for Clinton's last year in office, it's reasonable to expect he didn't increase his vacation rate. And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years