[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
No, the race is over at the convention, the super-delegates get their say and they could decide the election either way. They are being pressured to make their decision and end it now, before the convention. The Democratic Party leadership is trying to give Hillary the shaft and is not giving her a fair shake.[/quote]
It’s funny to hear you come across as a Clinton supporter.
[quote]vroom wrote:
In any case, there are probably a bazillion reasons to criticize any politician, but sure, when I see the same old tired ridiculously spun statements being used, instead of real substance, you are damned right I’ll point at it.
Divisiveness, fear-mongering, swift-boating and other ridiculous political tactics are worthy of a call out.[/quote]
I asked you in another thread but you ducked the question. What did the swift vets say about John Kerry that was untrue?
What does “swift-boating” mean? Is that where someone presents facts that cast a candidate in an unfavorable light, but those facts are out of bounds because it’s the candidate that Vroom supports?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No, the race is over at the convention, the super-delegates get their say and they could decide the election either way. They are being pressured to make their decision and end it now, before the convention. The Democratic Party leadership is trying to give Hillary the shaft and is not giving her a fair shake.
It’s funny to hear you come across as a Clinton supporter.[/quote]
It is funny to be in this position. I do not want her as president but she cannot be squeezed out like this just because she is inconvenient. She has approximately 50% of the popular vote, 2 state primaries that may not be counted and a super-delegate system is in place to deal with this exact situation. The leading Democrats don’t want to use it because it reeks of shady back room deals, but it is the system that is in place.
Obama will obviously most likely get the nomination but Hillary deserves to stay in it until the end and have all votes cast and counted and time to make her case for the super-delegates at the convention.
Not because she is a good person, she deserves it because millions of Americans voted for her and put her in this position.
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should STFU and let the votes be counted and let the system work.
This is not a case of idiot Ron Paul staying it it to raise money and pad his retirement fund although 90% of the people are voting against him. She has ~ 50% of the vote! She is not even demanding a recount, just stay in it until the end and let all votes be cast and counted, including the ones to be cast at the convention.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
What does “swift-boating” mean? Is that where someone presents facts that cast a candidate in an unfavorable light, but those facts are out of bounds because it’s the candidate that Vroom supports?[/quote]
So, you believe that Kerry made overblown accounts of his service instead of serving honorably during the war?
Spinning a serious positive into a ridiculous negative by presenting HALF of the facts would perhaps be a definition for swift-boating.
The mantra that he wrote his own commendations was reported vigorously, but somehow the fact that it wasn’t uncommon for the person actually involved to outline the events that happened gets left out. The divisiveness of politics and the justification of not-quite fabrications through partisanship to discredit candidates is simply wrong – regardless of the candidate.
Once again, there were plenty of real and serious issues to focus on, instead of simply working to discredit every candidate that dares to run for office.
I’d rather see important issues concerning McCain and Obama (or the unlikely Clinton) be discussed than all the tripe I expect to see.
Side note, I don’t have time to follow all the threads religiously anymore, so excuse me for not finding your question elsewhere.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Is this more of the “I don’t insult” style commentary you are so famous for?[/quote]
Who said was famous for that? I try to match the tone of whoever I am replying to.
But, you don’t point out anything worthwhile. What you keep labeling as “spin” - what you always label as “spin” - is criticism you don’t like. The criticism here is legitimate - you may not like it, but it raises substantive issues about the candidate.
Thing is, you don’t have a principled definition for your precious “spin” - and it looks more and more partisan.
But these are cheap, lazy buzzwords. Is it “fear-mongering” when Obama takes the stump and says McCain will just be a third Bush term? Is it “swift-boating” to take the Senate floor to slam McCain individually for not supporting the veterans’ bill as “not being for veterans” when McCain offered an alternative to what was proposed?
Based on your conveniently selective and Pollyanna-ish rules, how are candidates ever supposed to distinguish themselves?
More specifically, here we have Obama who has explicitly said that we should focus on his Character and Judgment, and not Experience (he has none). So, we poke, we prod, looking for Judgments and decisions, choices he made that reflect his Character.
But, according to you, every time a question is raised, and doubts are voiced, like a trained parrot, you squawk “spin!”.
Hogwash. It is an election. I don’t want the election process to get into filthy politics, but by God, we have to put these guys through a ringer and test their mettle.
When Obama - the self-appointed savior and healer of divisions - associates with radicals that preach hatred and division, it matters: it reflects his Judgment and his Competence. After all, if you can’t even stand up to the divisive folks in your circle of associates or the church you go to, how in the hell are you going to bring America together on the same issue?
There are good questions that related directly to the message Obama is expressly campaigning on - so the rest of us raise them, debate them, and Obama deserves every inch of it.
That’s one example.
If that is “spin” to you - spin, spin, spin - too bad. The job is the President of the United States, and the interview process needs to be a little tougher than what Obama has faced up to this point by his airheaded legions of followers and a supine media.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Is this more of the “I don’t insult” style commentary you are so famous for?
Who said was famous for that? I try to match the tone of whoever I am replying to.
In any case, there are probably a bazillion reasons to criticize any politician, but sure, when I see the same old tired ridiculously spun statements being used, instead of real substance, you are damned right I’ll point at it.
But, you don’t point out anything worthwhile. What you keep labeling as “spin” - what you always label as “spin” - is criticism you don’t like. The criticism here is legitimate - you may not like it, but it raises substantive issues about the candidate.
Thing is, you don’t have a principled definition for your precious “spin” - and it looks more and more partisan.
Divisiveness, fear-mongering, swift-boating and other ridiculous political tactics are worthy of a call out.
But these are cheap, lazy buzzwords. Is it “fear-mongering” when Obama takes the stump and says McCain will just be a third Bush term? Is it “swift-boating” to take the Senate floor to slam McCain individually for not supporting the veterans’ bill as “not being for veterans” when McCain offered an alternative to what was proposed?
Based on your conveniently selective and Pollyanna-ish rules, how are candidates ever supposed to distinguish themselves?
More specifically, here we have Obama who has explicitly said that we should focus on his Character and Judgment, and not Experience (he has none). So, we poke, we prod, looking for Judgments and decisions, choices he made that reflect his Character.
But, according to you, every time a question is raised, and doubts are voiced, like a trained parrot, you squawk “spin!”.
Hogwash. It is an election. I don’t want the election process to get into filthy politics, but by God, we have to put these guys through a ringer and test their mettle.
When Obama - the self-appointed savior and healer of divisions - associates with radicals that preach hatred and division, it matters: it reflects his Judgment and his Competence. After all, if you can’t even stand up to the divisive folks in your circle of associates or the church you go to, how in the hell are you going to bring America together on the same issue?
There are good questions that related directly to the message Obama is expressly campaigning on - so the rest of us raise them, debate them, and Obama deserves every inch of it.
That’s one example.
If that is “spin” to you - spin, spin, spin - too bad. The job is the President of the United States, and the interview process needs to be a little tougher than what Obama has faced up to this point by his airheaded legions of followers and a supine media.[/quote]
Well said, truth about a liberal candidate is negative campaigning, while it’s the truth about a republican. Can’t stand the heat…
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, you believe that Kerry made overblown accounts of his service instead of serving honorably during the war?
Spinning a serious positive into a ridiculous negative by presenting HALF of the facts would perhaps be a definition for swift-boating.
The mantra that he wrote his own commendations was reported vigorously, but somehow the fact that it wasn’t uncommon for the person actually involved to outline the events that happened gets left out. The divisiveness of politics and the justification of not-quite fabrications through partisanship to discredit candidates is simply wrong – regardless of the candidate.
…[/quote]
Vroom, you should let the so called “swift boating” go.
The facts are Kerry signed up for a war, did his job, regretted his decision and worked his way to get out of it by stretching the rules. No big deal except he ran as a war hero.
The Democratic National convention showed his home video of a reenacted mission and if I recall correctly they even put in special effects to make it look like he was under fire.
He got sent home early because he had three Purple Hearts. One was for a scratch on the arm and most men would not have accepted the award. Another was for an accident when he was destroying a pile of rice. Purple Hearts are not supposed to be given under these circumstances.
This does not make him a bad man but when he came home and insulted all the men that served with his overblown and factually questionable testimony to the Senate he opened himself to criticism.
When he promoted his service every day on the campaign trail a better look at his record is not only fair, it is demanded.
I too would like to see more discussion on issues but no one wants to discuss Obama raising taxes on oil companies (and thereby consumers) or Obama’s cap and trade proposal and how incredibly damaging these will be to the economy.
No one wants to talk about his withdrawal from NAFTA (but not really), withdrawal from Iraq (but he will go back in if AQ goes there), …
Obama’s whole campaign has been based on claiming he is different, blasting the other candidates, proposing bad policy, letting his advisers say he really didn’t mean what he said and then complaining about every criticism leveled at him.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No, the race is over at the convention, the super-delegates get their say and they could decide the election either way. They are being pressured to make their decision and end it now, before the convention. The Democratic Party leadership is trying to give Hillary the shaft and is not giving her a fair shake.
It’s funny to hear you come across as a Clinton supporter.
It is funny to be in this position. I do not want her as president but she cannot be squeezed out like this just because she is inconvenient. She has approximately 50% of the popular vote, 2 state primaries that may not be counted and a super-delegate system is in place to deal with this exact situation. The leading Democrats don’t want to use it because it reeks of shady back room deals, but it is the system that is in place.
Obama will obviously most likely get the nomination but Hillary deserves to stay in it until the end and have all votes cast and counted and time to make her case for the super-delegates at the convention.
Not because she is a good person, she deserves it because millions of Americans voted for her and put her in this position.
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should STFU and let the votes be counted and let the system work.
This is not a case of idiot Ron Paul staying it it to raise money and pad his retirement fund although 90% of the people are voting against him. She has ~ 50% of the vote! She is not even demanding a recount, just stay in it until the end and let all votes be cast and counted, including the ones to be cast at the convention.[/quote]
Again, this is decided by delegates not popular vote. Obama has more delegate. If you count every vote ever casted even elections that don’t count and shouldn’t count by Hillary and her advisors own words, Obama has more votes.
And for the millionth time the party IS letting her stay in till the end. She’s still in the race NOW (do you have a TV?) The elections end Tuesday. The remaining superdelegates who all clearly support Obama will then endorse him after Tuesday.
That is the exact opposite of being forced out.
Jeez!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
What does “swift-boating” mean? Is that where someone presents facts that cast a candidate in an unfavorable light, but those facts are out of bounds because it’s the candidate that Vroom supports?
So, you believe that Kerry made overblown accounts of his service instead of serving honorably during the war?
Spinning a serious positive into a ridiculous negative by presenting HALF of the facts would perhaps be a definition for swift-boating.
The mantra that he wrote his own commendations was reported vigorously, but somehow the fact that it wasn’t uncommon for the person actually involved to outline the events that happened gets left out. The divisiveness of politics and the justification of not-quite fabrications through partisanship to discredit candidates is simply wrong – regardless of the candidate.
Once again, there were plenty of real and serious issues to focus on, instead of simply working to discredit every candidate that dares to run for office.
I’d rather see important issues concerning McCain and Obama (or the unlikely Clinton) be discussed than all the tripe I expect to see.
Side note, I don’t have time to follow all the threads religiously anymore, so excuse me for not finding your question elsewhere.[/quote]
Zap has already commented on some of it, but most importantly John Kerry came back from Vietnam and LIED about war crimes that he never saw for his own political gain.
The guy was almost sociopathic in the way he would invent stories so that he could sound like some sort of martyr in front of congress and the television cameras. Have you seen the clips of him testifying and the clips from television shows?
If you don’t realize he’s lying I suppose those clips make him seem brave, but once you know he’s lying it’s almost surreal how he could sit there and concoct stories that denigrated our entire military. Eventually he was presented with such overwhelming evidence that he had to admit he hadn’t “actually seen” the events he had described and he apologized for it.
Nothing that the Swift Vets said was false. For someone that hates “spin”, you sure do regurgitate a lot of it. The Democrats spun the term “to swift-boat” so that we would forget that it was true, John Kerry did lie about at least one of his purple hearts and he lied about his service (to the United States Congress), throwing his fellow troops completely under the bus.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out after the convention. Even though Obama is ahead in delegates he hasn’t put Hillary out. It doesn’t bode well for Obama in the general election.
Obama has made some really stupid comments. Comparing Hillary to McCain might be a good way to get the Obama camp excited and mobilize his base but it was a retarded comparison to make for the following reasons. Obama supporters are rabidly anti-Bush and for the most part would never vote republican. Hillary is closer to the center and much more likely to be getting swing voters.
Obama himself has made the case to Hillary supporters that McCain more closely represents their point of view than he does and the Hillary camp is about half the party.
Lets also not forget that one of the criticisms aimed at McCain during the republican race was that he was the closest to the political center. McCain has been known to associate with democrats and has even said he would have some in his administration.
Obama supporters denegrating Hillary supporters as being racist rednecks for not voting for Obama is going to leave a bad taste in peoples mouths come election time.
Especially in the important democrat state of Michigan where many can still remember former Detroit Mayor Coleman Young and all the years of race baiting. For those of you who don’t know Coleman Young he was like a very opinionated version of reverand Wright.
The bottom line is Hillary has a point that Obama is not capable of winning the presidency.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Nothing that the Swift Vets said was false. For someone that hates “spin”, you sure do regurgitate a lot of it. The Democrats spun the term “to swift-boat” so that we would forget that it was true, John Kerry did lie about at least one of his purple hearts and he lied about his service (to the United States Congress), throwing his fellow troops completely under the bus.[/quote]
The SBVT were thoroughly debunked back in 2004. They did nothing but tell repeated lies, laugh out loud whopper lies.
Crazy man O’Neil said 60 men contributed to the book that served with Kerry. And many made the claim that they had. In fact, one did, and hilariously lying Gardner, was, you know, never present for any of the incidents leading to JFK’s medals.
How bout O’Neil saying he’d never been in Cambodia?
Factually, he had. He told Nixon himself.
Just reading over some of the contradictory things they said when confronted with their lies is hilarious.
Anyway, yeah those guys were the lyingest liars that I can remember in a long time. Kooks too!
This statement “Nothing that the Swift Vets said was false” is just shocking in its ignorance. Goodness!
[quote]100meters wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Nothing that the Swift Vets said was false. For someone that hates “spin”, you sure do regurgitate a lot of it. The Democrats spun the term “to swift-boat” so that we would forget that it was true, John Kerry did lie about at least one of his purple hearts and he lied about his service (to the United States Congress), throwing his fellow troops completely under the bus.
The SBVT were thoroughly debunked back in 2004. They did nothing but tell repeated lies, laugh out loud whopper lies.
Crazy man O’Neil said 60 men contributed to the book that served with Kerry. And many made the claim that they had. In fact, one did, and hilariously lying Gardner, was, you know, never present for any of the incidents leading to JFK’s medals.
How bout O’Neil saying he’d never been in Cambodia?
Factually, he had. He told Nixon himself.
Just reading over some of the contradictory things they said when confronted with their lies is hilarious.
Anyway, yeah those guys were the lyingest liars that I can remember in a long time. Kooks too!
This statement “Nothing that the Swift Vets said was false” is just shocking in its ignorance. Goodness!
[/quote]
You’ve written a lot of stuff here, but you still haven’t shown what the swift boats vets said about John Kerry that was false. Your “debunking” of O’Neill’s involvement in Cambodia is both factually untrue (O’Neill was heard in a tape with Nixon saying he was “working along the border”, which was factually consistent with his other statements that placed him “about 100 yards from Cambodia.”
The tape that you claim “debunks” his story actually verifies it), and irrelevant because Kerry admitted to being mistaken about his own involvement in Cambodia.
I’ll take back my absolute “nothing the swift boat vets ever said was false”, because I’m sure one of the members lied about his max bench at some point and you’re prone to using semantics to subvert facts.
The fact remains that John Kerry consistently lied about his service in Vietnam, including lying to Congress and lying for personal and political gain. I campaigned for Kerry. I voted for Kerry as the lesser of two evils, but facts are stubborn things. Why did John Kerry admit to being mistaken about Cambodia if it was true? Why did John Kerry admit to the things you are saying are false and apologize for them?
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
100meters wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Nothing that the Swift Vets said was false. For someone that hates “spin”, you sure do regurgitate a lot of it. The Democrats spun the term “to swift-boat” so that we would forget that it was true, John Kerry did lie about at least one of his purple hearts and he lied about his service (to the United States Congress), throwing his fellow troops completely under the bus.
The SBVT were thoroughly debunked back in 2004. They did nothing but tell repeated lies, laugh out loud whopper lies.
Crazy man O’Neil said 60 men contributed to the book that served with Kerry. And many made the claim that they had. In fact, one did, and hilariously lying Gardner, was, you know, never present for any of the incidents leading to JFK’s medals.
How bout O’Neil saying he’d never been in Cambodia?
Factually, he had. He told Nixon himself.
Just reading over some of the contradictory things they said when confronted with their lies is hilarious.
Anyway, yeah those guys were the lyingest liars that I can remember in a long time. Kooks too!
This statement “Nothing that the Swift Vets said was false” is just shocking in its ignorance. Goodness!
You’ve written a lot of stuff here, but you still haven’t shown what the swift boats vets said about John Kerry that was false. Your “debunking” of O’Neill’s involvement in Cambodia is both factually untrue (O’Neill was heard in a tape with Nixon saying he was “working along the border”, which was factually consistent with his other statements that placed him “about 100 yards from Cambodia.”
The tape that you claim “debunks” his story actually verifies it), and irrelevant because Kerry admitted to being mistaken about his own involvement in Cambodia.
I’ll take back my absolute “nothing the swift boat vets ever said was false”, because I’m sure one of the members lied about his max bench at some point and you’re prone to using semantics to subvert facts. The fact remains that John Kerry consistently lied about his service in Vietnam, including lying to Congress and lying for personal and political gain.
I campaigned for Kerry. I voted for Kerry as the lesser of two evils, but facts are stubborn things. Why did John Kerry admit to being mistaken about Cambodia if it was true? Why did John Kerry admit to the things you are saying are false and apologize for them?[/quote]
There are so many lies about Cambodia alone, I don’t even know where to start, but O’Neil told Nixon
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/24/asb.00.html
I mean you’re just so way off on this one, Nobody thinks they were telling the truth about anything (after all, none of them served with Kerry and the folks that did, well they all support Kerry’s claims----as did the SBVT in the past, before they began lying)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But, you don’t point out anything worthwhile. What you keep labeling as “spin” - what you always label as “spin” - is criticism you don’t like. The criticism here is legitimate - you may not like it, but it raises substantive issues about the candidate.[/quote]
LOL. You just prove that my job is not done… so I’ll keep working at it.
Just because things are hard to define, or hard to point out, may mean I’m not doing a good job, but it certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t out there – and that people aren’t soaking it up like sponges.
The fact that you like to “play dumb” and pretend not to know what someone means, does not cause commonly used terms to suddenly no longer exist. You just want to force anyone who says something you disagree with to waste shitloads of time resorting to an infinite level of detail.
Anyway, I generally deplore the tactic of loading bills with contradictory viewpoints and then pounding on whichever one was not voted for. That is a great tactic of both sides and it is very unfortunate that so many voters fall for it.
It would be probably be fear mongering if Obama said that McCain was going to invade countries all over the planet until the world was converted to the beliefs and ideals of the USA.
[quote]More specifically, here we have Obama who has explicitly said that we should focus on his Character and Judgment, and not Experience (he has none). So, we poke, we prod, looking for Judgments and decisions, choices he made that reflect his Character.
But, according to you, every time a question is raised, and doubts are voiced, like a trained parrot, you squawk “spin!”.[/quote]
I know that you present this as your viewpoint. However, it’s just not so. Maybe some day you’ll be able to see what I’m saying, and perhaps you already do but like to feign ignorance for the purpose of argument. Who can say?
There is nothing wrong with the ringer. However, I’d like to see a clean ringer, instead of a filthy one. Maybe I never will… but I’m going to keep trying – no matter how many times you whine about my apparently futile attempts.
Self-appointed? Savior? Really? Wow, I don’t think anybody could actually measure up to those terms. Too bad he set the bar so high for himself – otherwise he might have been able to be taken seriously by at least a few people.
[quote]There are good questions that related directly to the message Obama is expressly campaigning on - so the rest of us raise them, debate them, and Obama deserves every inch of it.
That’s one example.
If that is “spin” to you - spin, spin, spin - too bad. The job is the President of the United States, and the interview process needs to be a little tougher than what Obama has faced up to this point by his airheaded legions of followers and a supine media.[/quote]
I agree that nobody was asking Obama decent questions for quite a while – even Hilary raised that issue. Toughness is not all about slinging shit though.
Let me ask you a question. If somebody cared to work on race relations, do you think somebody who had seen excesses on both sides of the issue might have a better chance at understand the task at hand than someone who had not?
If you want to pretend to analyze the issue, it would generally be good to present both the pro and the con in realistic terms. There is a chance that Obama shares some viewpoints with what some would consider zany offensive people. He says he does not. He doesn’t have a history of hate speech towards whitey himself. However, he did attend a church where nonsense had been expressed from time to time and considered one of the pastors a mentor.
Wow, look at that, I’m conceding various facts, that so far have absolutely nothing to do with spin.
However, on the other side, Obama has experience with the issue of racism both as someone who has felt it (no, I’m not calling him oppressed as another ridiculous post suggested) – and then also hateful speech targeted in the opposite direction. He says it is time to stop that… time to work past that. It’s possible that some of the things he saw in that church helped him realize that divisiveness works both ways. As an educated man, that would make sense.
Again, until the day comes along that simple unspun facts can be presented, showing thought out pros and cons, then I’m going to point out partisan spin when I see it.
Feel free to make a reference to kumba-ya or something and complain that such commentary is not comic book tough enough.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Vroom, you should let the so called “swift boating” go.
The facts are Kerry signed up for a war, did his job, regretted his decision and worked his way to get out of it by stretching the rules. No big deal except he ran as a war hero.
The Democratic National convention showed his home video of a reenacted mission and if I recall correctly they even put in special effects to make it look like he was under fire.
He got sent home early because he had three Purple Hearts. One was for a scratch on the arm and most men would not have accepted the award. Another was for an accident when he was destroying a pile of rice. Purple Hearts are not supposed to be given under these circumstances.
This does not make him a bad man but when he came home and insulted all the men that served with his overblown and factually questionable testimony to the Senate he opened himself to criticism.
When he promoted his service every day on the campaign trail a better look at his record is not only fair, it is demanded.
[/quote]
Look, you can certainly not like his coming back and complaining about war crimes, as his conscience apparently demanded of him, and I can’t argue with that.
However, as for his service, it would be great to try finding information that wasn’t coming from such slanted sources. It is truly sad to listen to the mantra of supporting the man in uniform and then see a man who was in uniform get trashed in such a disgraceful way. I guess he fought in the wrong war because nobody gave a shit about him. I don’t care if he fucking swabbed decks… he was in harms way in the uniform of his country, serving. Those that weren’t should not have been launching such attacks or condoning them.
Personally, I also feel the people that uncover actions like the Abu Graib fiasco, and that speak out, do a lot to uphold the honor of the country… and they risk losing friends and alienating a lot of people. That takes character – believe it or not. [It’s also possible that the recent actions by Scott are in the same light – with respect to the damaging nature of politics today – as he has potentially thrown away friendships, affiliations and knowing exposed himself to the great political discreditors.]
Now, millions of people like yourself spout these claims, about Kerry, and it doesn’t matter what really happened anymore. It’s like Al Gore and the “I invented the Internet” garbage. Never has something so little been blown into something so big. God forbid a republican every say anything that could be taken the wrong way… oh wait, it happens all the time, Bush is the poster child for it, and we are supposed to just accept it… with the mantra of “he misspoke” it’s no big deal.
Sigh, life is too partisan.
P.S. Kerry isn’t running for anything, so please don’t accuse me of trying to “support” him or anything ridiculous like that. There is nothing to support anymore.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Vroom, you should let the so called “swift boating” go.
The facts are Kerry signed up for a war, did his job, regretted his decision and worked his way to get out of it by stretching the rules. No big deal except he ran as a war hero.
The Democratic National convention showed his home video of a reenacted mission and if I recall correctly they even put in special effects to make it look like he was under fire.
He got sent home early because he had three Purple Hearts. One was for a scratch on the arm and most men would not have accepted the award. Another was for an accident when he was destroying a pile of rice. Purple Hearts are not supposed to be given under these circumstances.
This does not make him a bad man but when he came home and insulted all the men that served with his overblown and factually questionable testimony to the Senate he opened himself to criticism.
When he promoted his service every day on the campaign trail a better look at his record is not only fair, it is demanded.
Look, you can certainly not like his coming back and complaining about war crimes, as his conscience apparently demanded of him, and I can’t argue with that.
However, as for his service, it would be great to try finding information that wasn’t coming from such slanted sources. It is truly sad to listen to the mantra of supporting the man in uniform and then see a man who was in uniform get trashed in such a disgraceful way. I guess he fought in the wrong war because nobody gave a shit about him. I don’t care if he fucking swabbed decks… he was in harms way in the uniform of his country, serving. Those that weren’t should not have been launching such attacks or condoning them.
Personally, I also feel the people that uncover actions like the Abu Graib fiasco, and that speak out, do a lot to uphold the honor of the country… and they risk losing friends and alienating a lot of people. That takes character – believe it or not. [It’s also possible that the recent actions by Scott are in the same light – with respect to the damaging nature of politics today – as he has potentially thrown away friendships, affiliations and knowing exposed himself to the great political discreditors.]
Now, millions of people like yourself spout these claims, about Kerry, and it doesn’t matter what really happened anymore. It’s like Al Gore and the “I invented the Internet” garbage. Never has something so little been blown into something so big. God forbid a republican every say anything that could be taken the wrong way… oh wait, it happens all the time, Bush is the poster child for it, and we are supposed to just accept it… with the mantra of “he misspoke” it’s no big deal.
Sigh, life is too partisan.
P.S. Kerry isn’t running for anything, so please don’t accuse me of trying to “support” him or anything ridiculous like that. There is nothing to support anymore.[/quote]
It wasn’t so much that he came back and told about war crimes, it’s that he came back and told about others peoples’ war crimes and “atrocities”, many of which were untrue. He seized an opportunity to tell those stories because it gave him political capital in anti-war circles, even though a lot of it was just made up. And this was while troops were still in action.
One thing I will agree with you on though is the “I invented the Internet” garbage…annoying to no end.
[quote]vroom wrote:
LOL. You just prove that my job is not done… so I’ll keep working at it.[/quote]
What job?
Oh, I think there is plenty of “spin” out there - you just don’t seem to be able to offer any insight into it. Every time someone, anyone brings up criticism of Obama attacking the very things the candidate is running on, you offer an uneducated “it’s a buncha spin!” without even availing yourself of the information and the argument.
It isn’t analysis - it is a partisan cop-out. That is the point. You are exactly what you complain about others being.
Laughable. I simply raise the basic question of why you have this predictable and unoriginal tactic of dismissing criticism you don’t disagree with as “fear-mongering” - does it cut both ways?
Instead of addressing the criticism of Obama on its merits, you open the escape-hatch and decry it “fear-mongering!”. It’s not my problem to fix, and I suspect it is a deliberate avoidance of the issues raised.
I can’t see evidence of any commentary from you in these threads criticizing Obama that doesn’t amount to a “the right wing is just trying to create spin and distort”. It’s the same stuff nearly every time. It’s old.
And here is your problem - the substantive criticism of Obama in these threads isn’t “filthy”, yet you whine about “spin” all the same.
[quote]I agree that nobody was asking Obama decent questions for quite a while – even Hilary raised that issue. Toughness is not all about slinging shit though.
Let me ask you a question. If somebody cared to work on race relations, do you think somebody who had seen excesses on both sides of the issue might have a better chance at understand the task at hand than someone who had not?[/quote]
Could very well, but here is the problem - Obama could have been working on “race relations” all his adult life. He could have been working on it as a state legislator and as a Senator. But he did nothing to challenge the very people that add to the divisiveness of the race division that exists. Instead, he embraced them - never asked them to change, never gave them an ultimatum, never left the church.
How does he expose himself to these “excesses” - including have one of them marry him and several of them act as spiritual advisers to his campaign, up until only months ago - do little to confront these “excesses” over 20 years, but now decide that when running for President, suddenly, he will now challenge these “excesses” (and divorce them only when it is clear his relationships are hurting him with mainstream voters)?
One of two very important questions raised from that: either (1) Obama wants to do something about race relations, but really doesn’t have the spine to take on the people causing the problems, or (2) Obama isn’t quite the race-neutral conciliator he is offering to be.
Tough, substantive questions the rest of us are debating, while you entertain yourself with claims of “spin, spin, spin”.
One very important thing: these are issues that have been covered. You raise the question now, but both critics and supporters alike are moving on to the other questions raised, like the ones I raised above.
Again, you need to get up to speed. I have never suggested that Obama shares the same opinions as these wackos he associates with. That isn’t the criticism from me, or most.
And to suggest it is a distraction from the legitimate criticism.
The criticism is not that Obama is a Black Liberation soldier, it’s his Judgment in associating with this church and its leaders for over 20 years raises questions as to his capacity to be President of the US.
His other associations outside of the church with left-wing radicals also raise questions about his “Inclusiveness” message he trades on - he talks of “coming together”, but has nothing in his public life that suggests that he crosses the aisle, and his voting record isn’t centrist. Couple that with some of his associations and you have little reason to think he is the moderate centrist he purports to be - he is a very partisan candidate who really has no interest in “inclusiveness”.
I don’t think that makes him evil, but I think he is guilty of violating truth-in-advertising, and is frankly the classic dishonest, Elmer Gantry-type politician he and his supporters swear he isn’t.
This is the thrust of the criticism - all relevant, all substantive, and no spin.
And why does this interest me? I think both parties have become too ideological. I think America is ready for someone who can dial down the card-carrying ideology for someone who is principled yet more coalitional and pragmatic. Problem is, I don’t think Obama is anywhere near that, despite his advertising. I think he is exactly one more ideological warrior trying to shuttle his way to a nomination by advertising himself as something else. The evidence suggests he is, and it is an educated voter’s job to weigh that evidence minus the polished advertising.
[quote]Wow, look at that, I’m conceding various facts, that so far have absolutely nothing to do with spin.
However, on the other side, Obama has experience with the issue of racism both as someone who has felt it (no, I’m not calling him oppressed as another ridiculous post suggested) – and then also hateful speech targeted in the opposite direction. He says it is time to stop that… time to work past that. It’s possible that some of the things he saw in that church helped him realize that divisiveness works both ways. As an educated man, that would make sense.[/quote]
This might very well be, but see above - Obama hasn’t exactly demonstrated that he has the ability to do that.
Second, as political issues go, race-relations is not a high priority item on the executive to-do list. We have Iraq, oil prices, Iran, appointment of federal judges, drunken sailor spending, terrorism, Israel-Palestine, the list goes on.
The isn’t much that a President can do about race-relations, whatever the depth of the problem, other than use the bully-pulpit and symbolism. And let’s assume that Obama would be great at those - so what? He has real responsibilities that he must measure up to first. If he can do something about race-relations on top of all the other stuff, that is icing on the cake - but we aren’t hiring a race-conciliator at the expense of the real job of the Presidency.
Actually, you won’t - there has been plenty of substantive criticism you have derided as “spin” that simply isn’t.
When you get it figured out, your posts about “spin” will add value. Till then, we will recognize them for what they are - partisan dimissives dressed up as something else.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
It wasn’t so much that he came back and told about war crimes, it’s that he came back and told about others peoples’ war crimes and “atrocities”, many of which were untrue. He seized an opportunity to tell those stories because it gave him political capital in anti-war circles, even though a lot of it was just made up. And this was while troops were still in action.
[/quote]
I haven’t been convinced of this, but I’m willing to be pointed to non-partisan sources.
For now, given that we’ve had troubles in current times, in a war that was not a frustrating standstill, I’m more than able to believe that in the past, under those conditions, that war crimes would be perpetrated.
If his reports were eventually brushed off, or if charges were never brought, that does not mean his statements were untrue. Again, though, point me at it.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Vroom, you should let the so called “swift boating” go.
The facts are Kerry signed up for a war, did his job, regretted his decision and worked his way to get out of it by stretching the rules. No big deal except he ran as a war hero.
The Democratic National convention showed his home video of a reenacted mission and if I recall correctly they even put in special effects to make it look like he was under fire.
He got sent home early because he had three Purple Hearts. One was for a scratch on the arm and most men would not have accepted the award. Another was for an accident when he was destroying a pile of rice. Purple Hearts are not supposed to be given under these circumstances.
This does not make him a bad man but when he came home and insulted all the men that served with his overblown and factually questionable testimony to the Senate he opened himself to criticism.
When he promoted his service every day on the campaign trail a better look at his record is not only fair, it is demanded.
Look, you can certainly not like his coming back and complaining about war crimes, as his conscience apparently demanded of him, and I can’t argue with that.
However, as for his service, it would be great to try finding information that wasn’t coming from such slanted sources. It is truly sad to listen to the mantra of supporting the man in uniform and then see a man who was in uniform get trashed in such a disgraceful way. I guess he fought in the wrong war because nobody gave a shit about him. I don’t care if he fucking swabbed decks… he was in harms way in the uniform of his country, serving. Those that weren’t should not have been launching such attacks or condoning them.
Personally, I also feel the people that uncover actions like the Abu Graib fiasco, and that speak out, do a lot to uphold the honor of the country… and they risk losing friends and alienating a lot of people. That takes character – believe it or not. [It’s also possible that the recent actions by Scott are in the same light – with respect to the damaging nature of politics today – as he has potentially thrown away friendships, affiliations and knowing exposed himself to the great political discreditors.]
Now, millions of people like yourself spout these claims, about Kerry, and it doesn’t matter what really happened anymore. It’s like Al Gore and the “I invented the Internet” garbage. Never has something so little been blown into something so big. God forbid a republican every say anything that could be taken the wrong way… oh wait, it happens all the time, Bush is the poster child for it, and we are supposed to just accept it… with the mantra of “he misspoke” it’s no big deal.
Sigh, life is too partisan.
P.S. Kerry isn’t running for anything, so please don’t accuse me of trying to “support” him or anything ridiculous like that. There is nothing to support anymore.
It wasn’t so much that he came back and told about war crimes, it’s that he came back and told about others peoples’ war crimes and “atrocities”, many of which were untrue. He seized an opportunity to tell those stories because it gave him political capital in anti-war circles, even though a lot of it was just made up. And this was while troops were still in action.
One thing I will agree with you on though is the “I invented the Internet” garbage…annoying to no end.[/quote]
Gen. Tommy Franks said those atrocities certainly happened.
Wading past the tripe…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Could very well, but here is the problem - Obama could have been working on “race relations” all his adult life. He could have been working on it as a state legislator and as a Senator. But he did nothing to challenge the very people that add to the divisiveness of the race division that exists. Instead, he embraced them - never asked them to change, never gave them an ultimatum, never left the church.
How does he expose himself to these “excesses” - including have one of them marry him and several of them act as spiritual advisers to his campaign, up until only months ago - do little to confront these “excesses” over 20 years, but now decide that when running for President, suddenly, he will now challenge these “excesses” (and divorce them only when it is clear his relationships are hurting him with mainstream voters)?[/quote]
I do think he is being painted with too broad a brush. If he isn’t out to get whitey, and you are only worried about judgment, then things get much less significant. Who cares what excesses a person is exposed to. We’ve all been exposed to a lot of things, developed our understanding of issues over time, as we expand our contact with viewpoints and ideas.
You may feel otherwise, but I don’t mind if people are or have been angry about racism and so forth. People have the right to be angry, to voice their opinion about things, and to say it in ways that pisses other people off. Listening to other people do that, and not doing so yourself, doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me.
We are basically looking at this issue and saying Obama might not be a good president because we don’t like the type of people he hangs out with. I think that is a very suspect criteria for determining the quality of a candidate.
That’s it? Those are the only choices? I think you can do better than that.
His capacity? We don’t like his friends, so we don’t think he has the “capacity” to be President? Great, now all the leaders we choose are going to have the friends we’d want to have for ourselves. What a sad election criteria that is.
[quote]I don’t think that makes him evil, but I think he is guilty of violating truth-in-advertising, and is frankly the classic dishonest, Elmer Gantry-type politician he and his supporters swear he isn’t.
This is the thrust of the criticism - all relevant, all substantive, and no spin.[/quote]
There are little bits of spin slipping in… but not as egregious as before. The above is probably the best chance at coming out as non-spun decision based on issues. It’s something that can be discussed and teased apart further.
For example, do you have any serious evidence of him being “dishonest” throughout his life? Now, don’t forget that people of all stripes will have mistakes in judgment and understanding, and that isn’t the same. What has he done that truly shows some type of dishonesty, other than befriend people with viewpoints that challenge your sensibilities.
If it’s there, not in conjecture but in reality, then it is certainly worthy of bringing out. If it’s only a personal feeling, then that is a very different thing.
Again, the quality of this type of statement if much different than presented earlier. Now, let’s dig into the evidence, try to convince me – show us the proof. I know, perhaps you feel you just did, but if so, then you have some flimsy evidence that supports your personal viewpoint, but not necessarily much else at this point.
[quote]This might very well be, but see above - Obama hasn’t exactly demonstrated that he has the ability to do that.
Second, as political issues go, race-relations is not a high priority item on the executive to-do list. We have Iraq, oil prices, Iran, appointment of federal judges, drunken sailor spending, terrorism, Israel-Palestine, the list goes on.
The isn’t much that a President can do about race-relations, whatever the depth of the problem, other than use the bully-pulpit and symbolism. And let’s assume that Obama would be great at those - so what? He has real responsibilities that he must measure up to first. If he can do something about race-relations on top of all the other stuff, that is icing on the cake - but we aren’t hiring a race-conciliator at the expense of the real job of the Presidency.[/quote]
I disagree. I don’t think Obama would have to “do” anything to have a large impact on race relations. If a black man was elected as President the thought that whitey was holding anyone back would be an idea that would be forced to die. This in itself would quite likely do a lot to silently put an end to generations of rhetoric by the likes of reverend Wright.
Also, I have to suggest, that the job of the President is not simply to wage war and otherwise try to shape the planet. I haven’t seen anything that suggest that Obama would not be able to make hard decisions and take action as needed.
You keep telling yourself that.