Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't kid myself about Bush's history. However, to his credit, he appears to be a different man since he quit drinking and became born again.

Hmmm. But Kerry is the same guy he was thirty five years ago? Nothing has happened to change him or his life in the interim.

Despite Kerry's work as a prosecutor while Bush was not gainfully employed? Despite his work in Congress, while Bush was losing the money of his father's friends in failed oil ventures?

Either its all relevant or none of it is. But, I do think that the Kerry campaign is making a mistake by focusing on Vietnam service. They're obviously trying to blunt the standard "weak liberal" crapola the GOP throws around, and compare Kerry favorably to Bush, but that's not how I'd do it.

S_A_M

[P.S. This whole debate is premised on the hypothetical that the scurrilous charges against Kerry in the ad are true, which I still sincerely doubt.]

P.S. I

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you that partisan these days that you can't see it?

These days? When was he not?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hmmm. But Kerry is the same guy he was thirty five years ago? Nothing has happened to change him or his life in the interim.

Yeah, he married a billionaire and realized he could use her cash to run for prez. Well technically it was a loan on the house they "bought together". LOL! I'm just a Gigilo!

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
They're obviously trying to blunt the standard "weak liberal" crapola the GOP throws around, and compare Kerry favorably to Bush, but that's not how I'd do it.

How would you do it? By pointing out he voted for invading Iraq but not for funding the troops?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm very familiar with Oliphant. He's more objective than most on the left, but he still has some bias.

I have no idea whether Oliphant is right in that piece, but it at least demonstrates a deeper familiarity with Kerry's character and record than you're going to find anywhere else.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The bottom line was that he voted no on $ for troops at war. You and he can both contort all you like, but it's still a Ney.

The bottom line is that it was a dispute about how to pay for the war, not whether to pay for it. This is from an ABC News article that I found in about three seconds on Google:

• On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.
  
  Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
  
  Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
  
  Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."
  
  At the time of the October 2003 vote, "The nation had four months before funds were needed but Republicans were hell-bent on moving this bill through as quickly as possible, before the tough questions could be asked and the president's failures would be discovered," Cutter said.
  
  Cutter went on to say the Bush White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion supplemental bill if the Kerry-Biden amendment had passed.

No one in their right mind would accuse the White House of failing to support the troops by making this threat.

You kill me. The left have been BANGING the president relentlessly since 2003, but its the president slinging dirt. Are you that partisan these days that you can't see it? There is dirt on both sides, some true and some not. You have to be able to separate the shit out.

Did I not just say that there's dirt on both sides? Are you even reading my posts when you respond to them?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The bottom line is that it was a dispute about how to pay for the war, not whether to pay for it. This is from an ABC News article that I found in about three seconds on Google:

• On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.
  
  Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
  
  Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
  
  Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."
  
  At the time of the October 2003 vote, "The nation had four months before funds were needed but Republicans were hell-bent on moving this bill through as quickly as possible, before the tough questions could be asked and the president's failures would be discovered," Cutter said.
  
  Cutter went on to say the Bush White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion supplemental bill if the Kerry-Biden amendment had passed.

No one in their right mind would accuse the White House of failing to support the troops by making this threat.

So he voted against the $87 million. What are you trying to prove with this post? That he and 11 other senators wanted to fund the troops a different way? Fine, and maybe his way was better (I honestly don't know), but when it came down to supporting the troops or protesting, he protested. Sound familiar?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So he voted against the $87 million. What are you trying to prove with this post? That he and 11 other senators wanted to fund the troops a different way? Fine, and maybe his way was better (I honestly don't know), but when it came down to supporting the troops or protesting, he protested. Sound familiar?

By that logic, the White House is equally to blame, since it was willing to cut off the troops to further its domestic tax policy. But since we all know that the troops were going to be funded, and that only dispute was about how to pay for it, either attack is equally beside the point. Saying that Kerry would have failed to fund the troops is ignorant.

[Hank Chinaski]

Turns out we wouldn't have found out about these Albany guys if we hadn't gone into Iraq. You hear me Ty, the cruise missile at the camp wouldn't have done it, even if it hit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128193,00.html

So that's 1 good thing you have to concede. I'm starting to count.

[Hank Chinaski]

here's a flash that helps Teddy remember some others things to fear...

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/dacha/001544.html

seems like a French guy who can think straight.

oh, and as my daughter gets older, I will probably also fear Kennedys generally.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
By that logic, the White House is equally to blame, since it was willing to cut off the troops to further its domestic tax policy. But since we all know that the troops were going to be funded, and that only dispute was about how to pay for it, either attack is equally beside the point. Saying that Kerry would have failed to fund the troops is ignorant.

No, the executive branch proposes, the legislative branch disposes. The WH proposed supporting troops with additional funds. 78 senators agreed with the WH. Kerry did not.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Turns out we wouldn't have found out about these Albany guys if we hadn't gone into Iraq. You hear me Ty, the cruise missile at the camp wouldn't have done it, even if it hit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128193,00.html

So that's 1 good thing you have to concede. I'm starting to count.

But its not part of the war on terrorism Hank. Sure SH was a bad man, but there's just simply no connection between Iraq and terrorism.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So that's 1 good thing you have to concede. I'm starting to count.

Other good news is that it looks like Fox News' parent ain't doin' too shabby either. So that's 2.

Hey! We're on our way!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Fine, and maybe his way was better (I honestly don't know), but when it came down to supporting the troops or protesting, he protested. Sound familiar?

Don't forget "My Country. Love It or Leave It, You Longhaired Hippie Scum."

It completes the arc of your argument, and gives it that nice nostalgic resonance that McCain was referring to.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So he voted against the $87 million. What are you trying to prove with this post? That he and 11 other senators wanted to fund the troops a different way? Fine, and maybe his way was better (I honestly don't know), but when it came down to supporting the troops or protesting, he protested. Sound familiar?

Club, I am sometimes surprised at the way your posts alternate between thoughtful discussions of issues, or attempts to do so -- and complete drivel.

I don't believe that any intelligent human being can look at those facts (i.e. the Story behind the vote) -- and conclude that Kerry somehow failed to support the war effort in Iraq and thus was not "supporting the troops." That is simple-minded crap, fodder for 15 second sound-bites designed to appeal to the LCD and nothing more.

If your defense of the ads comes down to . . . "Well, maybe its misleading, but he DID vote that way (so he didn't "support the troops" and he is a flip-flopper no matter what the facts or reasons are). . . " just save the electrons.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, the executive branch proposes, the legislative branch disposes. The WH proposed supporting troops with additional funds. 78 senators agreed with the WH. Kerry did not.

Glad to see you paid that much attention in 8th grade Civics (although apaprently not to the part about the President's veto power or his role as the leader of one of our Nation's political parties ). Now, let's see if you can move beyond it.

You may not have read the last series of posts to which you responded. Let me correct your post:

"The WH proposed supporting troops with additional funds. Kerry and others proposed supporting the troops with additional funds from another source. The WH threatened to veto the funding bill if the Senate passed Kerry's measure. 78 Senators ultimately voted for the WH bill. Kerry stuck to his guns, and did not agree with the WH on the source of the funding for the troops."

That's honest, but makes a lousy political ad.

S_A_M