Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Not Bob]

So, if the Swifties were just exercising free speech, this is ok, right?

From USA Today:'Texans for Truth' ad challenges Bush on Guard service

• In the new ad, retired lieutenant colonel Robert Mintz says he "heard George W. Bush get up there and say, 'I served in the 187th Air National Guard in Montgomery, Alabama.'
  
  "I said, 'Really? That was my unit. And I don't remember seeing you there,' " Mintz says. "So I called my friends and said, 'Did you know that George Bush served in our unit?' And everyone said, 'No, I never saw him there.' It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size." Texans for Truth plans to spend $100,000 to $250,000 to run the ad for a week in closely contested states that are home to large numbers of families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq. Such states include Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon and Arizona. But the group would not specify which states it has bought ad time in.
  
  The Bush-Cheney campaign is crying foul. Charges that Bush failed to fulfill his Guard duties are "baseless and false," campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said. "The president served honorably in the National Guard, fulfilled his duties and was honorably discharged."
  
  Kerry-Edwards campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said, "We've never heard of this outfit," referring to Texans for Truth.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
How so? Explain. Tell me what Bush is currently doing that is so great. Besides fucking around in Iraq.

For the near future both Bush and Kerry will do whatever is suggested as improvements, as long as they are reasonable and affordable. AQ won't choose to pass on blowing up a DC Metro car because Bush is reelected and he's more resolute. If AQ can blow up a Metro car, it will.

Where i see the difference is who "will go all the way" on a tough call. What if it becomes clear we have to threaten sanctions on SA, blockade (I'm not sure this is even possible) NK or blow up shit in Iran? I know Bush will do it. Kerry who still thinks the war was a good idea, but we shouldn't divert money for it and we should have gotten the French involved? I don't feel comfortable he will make the tough decisions that probably need to be made.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Idea:

First, the truly American way is not to do things ourselves, but rather to pay other people to do things for us. Consequently, since Russia now seems to want to preemptively go after terrorists, we should secretly fund them. Russia then goes apeshit on radical Islam. This refocuses all terrorism on Moscow, thus making the US safer.

Good idea to get Russia to go apeshit on Islam. But your prediction is wrong if you think that will refocus all terrorism on Moscow. That will make them safer. Especially if our plan of bringing freedom and democracy to the middle east ultimately prevails.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, if the Swifties were just exercising free speech, this is ok, right?

From USA Today:'Texans for Truth' ad challenges Bush on Guard service

You know, I'm really glad that I can just say, nope, never served. Did some time in state government and some not-for-profit jobs, though. Uh, I think that a few of the not-for-profits are lucky if they're still around, much less have records of my being there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, if the Swifties were just exercising free speech, this is ok, right?

From USA Today:'Texans for Truth' ad challenges Bush on Guard service

• In the new ad, retired lieutenant colonel Robert Mintz says he "heard George W. Bush get up there and say, 'I served in the 187th Air National Guard in Montgomery, Alabama.'
  
  "I said, 'Really? That was my unit. And I don't remember seeing you there,' " Mintz says. "So I called my friends and said, 'Did you know that George Bush served in our unit?' And everyone said, 'No, I never saw him there.' It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size." Texans for Truth plans to spend $100,000 to $250,000 to run the ad for a week in closely contested states that are home to large numbers of families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq. Such states include Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon and Arizona. But the group would not specify which states it has bought ad time in.
  
  The Bush-Cheney campaign is crying foul. Charges that Bush failed to fulfill his Guard duties are "baseless and false," campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said. "The president served honorably in the National Guard, fulfilled his duties and was honorably discharged."
  
  Kerry-Edwards campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said, "We've never heard of this outfit," referring to Texans for Truth.

Not Bob. Do you see a difference in sleaze level here? There is a very distinct difference. See if you can articulate it. If you don't see it you are simply another piece on the myopic heap that includes Ty and all his Toadies here. I am hoping you can expain how this is much worse than the SBVFT, because I know you're better than Tywonk Grgrgesam.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, if the Swifties were just exercising free speech, this is ok, right?

From USA Today:'Texans for Truth' ad challenges Bush on Guard service

As long as the DNC or Kerry aren't coordinating with them, sure it is OK.

The Reps on this board aren't hypocrites on the issue of freedom. We are all for it.

eta - unless of course, they are making libelous statements. The first amendment doesn't protect libel and that is not OK.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, if the Swifties were just exercising free speech, this is ok, right?

From USA Today:'Texans for Truth' ad challenges Bush on Guard service

• In the new ad, retired lieutenant colonel Robert Mintz says he "heard George W. Bush get up there and say, 'I served in the 187th Air National Guard in Montgomery, Alabama.'
  
  "I said, 'Really? That was my unit. And I don't remember seeing you there,' " Mintz says. "So I called my friends and said, 'Did you know that George Bush served in our unit?' And everyone said, 'No, I never saw him there.' It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size." Texans for Truth plans to spend $100,000 to $250,000 to run the ad for a week in closely contested states that are home to large numbers of families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq. Such states include Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon and Arizona. But the group would not specify which states it has bought ad time in.
  
  The Bush-Cheney campaign is crying foul. Charges that Bush failed to fulfill his Guard duties are "baseless and false," campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said. "The president served honorably in the National Guard, fulfilled his duties and was honorably discharged."
  
  Kerry-Edwards campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said, "We've never heard of this outfit," referring to Texans for Truth.

This is fine, except that its untrue. There has already been guys who have come forward and vouched that he was there, including his commanding officer.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, if the Swifties were just exercising free speech, this is ok, right?

Sure is. I sort of hope the press gives this lots of attention. So far, the main media has been able to skate around a lot of the Swifties' points by dismissing them as a dishonorable attack. This new bunch will mostly strip that defense away.

It's gonna be an interesting sixty days.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Kerry who still thinks the war was a good idea

Not according to his statements this week. He said this was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.

flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop,

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is fine, except that its untrue. There has already been guys who have come forward and vouched that he was there, including his commanding officer.

Not exactly. There was one guy, produced by the White House, who said Bush was there, except that he said Bush was there at times when no one else -- including Bush -- thinks he was there. So that part's not looking so good.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So that part's not looking so good.

Could be. Good thing Bush didn't base his campaign on his NG service.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Could be. Good thing Bush didn't base his campaign on his NG service.

I've never understood why seemingly intelligent people, like you and Slave, keep repeating this mantra, as if a woman who shows some skin deserves to get raped. We all know that the Swifties were going to run their crap no matter what Kerry said at the convention.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
For the near future both Bush and Kerry will do whatever is suggested as improvements, as long as they are reasonable and affordable. AQ won't choose to pass on blowing up a DC Metro car because Bush is reelected and he's more resolute. If AQ can blow up a Metro car, it will.

Where i see the difference is who "will go all the way" on a tough call. What if it becomes clear we have to threaten sanctions on SA, blockade (I'm not sure this is even possible) NK or blow up shit in Iran? I know Bush will do it. Kerry who still thinks the war was a good idea, but we shouldn't divert money for it and we should have gotten the French involved? I don't feel comfortable he will make the tough decisions that probably need to be made.

This is well stated. However, I am curious as to what would possibly give you the idea that GWB would do anything except coddle SA?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Could be. Good thing Bush didn't base his campaign on his NG service.

I keep hearing this argument, but it strikes me that the whole VN issue is like a fucking black hole. Both candidates are getting sucked into it, and no light is escaping.

It doesn't seem to matter if you drove your Swiftboat into it, or it you flew your outdated fighter jet far, far from its center.

Just like the Republican wag who commented that when the GOP is thru with Kerry, "people won't be sure what side he fought on," I think that near November people will forget how much Bush wanted this campaign to be about bullhorns and not fighter jets.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by bilmore
Could be. Good thing Bush didn't base his campaign on his NG service.

So the photo ops with him in a flight suit on a navy ship declaring victory in Iraq will never be hauled out again?*


*well, they probably won't, but I'd guess that has more to do with problems with the definition of "victory"