Dole 1996-Let's attack a vet. - Page 2

I probabl make more as an adjunt than you do in high school . . . why do you keep bringing that up anyway?

But anyway, notice that in your post that you are quoting addabox yet mentioning my name . . . what's up with that?

Responding is saying "we think it was wrong when Senator Kerry stood before Congress 30 years ago and read the testimony of veterans. We think Vietnam was a good and just war and Kerry was wrong when he said otherwise".

That, of course, is not what happened. Or do you just think that feeling "attacked" gives you carte blanche to say any slanderous thing you want?


(sigh) Are you just genetically incapable of not making shit up when it comes to Kerry?


Is that what we can see? Because all I can see is some bitter vets willing to do the republican party's dirty work because of a grudge they've been harboring for 30 years.

But again, you seem feel that by offending anyone, Kerry richly deserves whatever mud that can be thrown.

Which is a really, um.... sleazed out stance.

So in the end as you can see you really didn't win anybody over or prove anything. Other than you can get difficult when backed into a corner.

So in the end you really didn't accomplish anything.

Oh hell, let's try this: we'll really narrow it down so there can be no ambiguity.

Trumptman, you have asserted that Kerry called Bush "an incompetent president because of his type or lack of service".

Can you show any link at all to such a statement. It should be pretty easy, after all, thems fightin' words and surely would have gotten a lot of coverage.

If not, will you please retract this statement. There are already far to many unsubstantiated claims being made in this and other threads.
They just keep piling up, and I think a little house cleaning is in order.

Oh. So when you say " Kerry called Bush an incompetent president because of his type or lack of service", you mean other people said something along those lines.

And if I don't accept this as "proof" it's apparently because I just won't be satisfied.

Neat-o.

I know it was not directed at me, but I remember many instances where this subject came up:

"John Kerry was a warrior. George Bush was a draft dodger," Kerry booster Del Sandusky told a Florida audience in July, and as to wether or not he fullfilled his commitment in February, ""Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question."

"I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, about going to jail, about being a conscientious objector, or going into the National Guard. These are choices people make." Said Kerry, which he was widely criticized for.

"Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty, having taken that oath, can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went," said Kerry.

Mr. Cleland said "We need somebody who felt the sting of battle, not someone who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the Guard." "This President who wants to be viewed as a strong leader in a time of war, he doesn't know a darn thing about war," he said. "This country is now paying dearly for George Bush's inexperience in war."

"I've fought for my country. I know what it means to defend my nation," Kerry said in Apri. "This president can't even prove he actually showed up for duty in the National Guard."

"George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed up. And there's John Kerry on the stage with a chest full of medals that he earned by saving the lives of American soldiers. So, as John Kerry says, `Bring it on!' " said Terry McAuliffe on behalf of JK.

I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a President who can't account for his own service in the National Guard - and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do - criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served," Kerry said in April.

Spin if you must, but this has long been the aspersions cast by the Kerry camp.

Edit: Put quotation in right spot. addabox pointed out my mistake by calling me a liar. Not the best approach, but hey whatever works.

Nice try, liar.

You've edited Kerry's remarks together with the remarks of others to make it appear as if Kerry has been more critical than he has.

Here's the actual story (note that all your quotes came from a single event, brought on by the beginning of the Bush smear campaign).

"This President who wants to be viewed as a strong leader in a time of war, he doesn't know a darn thing about war," he said. "This country is now paying dearly for George Bush's inexperience in war." is from Max Cleland.

Kerry is justifiably angry that a guy like Bush is trying to paint a guy like Kerry as a coward or worse, but he never has said that Bush is unfit for office or can't prosecute the war on terror because he didn't serve, which was Trumpt's allegation. (Still waiting for that retraction, guy).

Trumptman,

If it's OK for Dole to attack Kerry's war record, is it now OK for Kerry to attack Bush's record?

Is it OK or not?

Well, you see, the name calling starts...

I got these quotes from multiple sources and then verified them with others. I did nothing more than cut the exact quotations from articles from CNN and Reuters and AP and Boston Globe among others. The stories were easily found using google and lycos and go.com.

I guess the facts don't matter.

Its not a name if its true

Oh yeah, a couple of things:

1. I only added the months that the quotes occurred, according to the date it was reported.

2. The story you quoted was one that I read, but it only tells a small bit of what was said by Kerry and it is not necessarily chronological nor does it specify dates.

3. Fine I pasted the Cleland, I will go back and edit that so it is correct. I am not sure how that makes a huge difference when he is Kerry's trophy amputee.

So go back and reread my post after I correct my mistake. Then call me a liar again. please.

Originally posted by NaplesX


Facts matter, which is why they can't be left in the hands of people who have no use for them.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by addabox

...which you have personally illustrated for us.

I think we all know how you feel about facts...

Yes, I think we do. I think they should be defended in the face of vicious slander, mindless boosterism, revisionist history, torturous "logic", deliberate misrepresentations, and good old lies.

It would appear that the people you have aligned yourself with regard facts as an inconvenience that can be handily extinguished with the help of, well, people like you.

Oooh! Strident venom! I believe that comes from the Tennessee Walking Snake....

Now, as to Kerry using surrogates to say things that are too harsh for a presidential candidate to say, of course. I don't recall contesting the notion.

But that's not what you alleged, is it? Now you want it understood that "Kerry said" means "Kerry's surrogates said" and if that's what you want to say now, fine. I have no quarrel with that.

But if I announced in a thread that Bush said "Kerry's a dirty coward", and when you asked when the hell did he say that I pointed to his "surrogates", you wouldn't let that stand, would you Nick? Come on, Nicky nick nick you little scamp, you would be fair dripping with scorn, wouldn't you, you old knucklehead you.

You thin skinned old hypocrite, you.

yeah I know i should disavow Google, Lycos, AP, Reuters, CNN, and MSNBC. I knew I should have never aligned myself with those flakes.

Adda... the names are flying off of your fingertips...

Does this strengthen your argument?

You forgot "Foogle" and "Clinton Body Count" among others.

What, like Try the decaf.
?

This thread is starting to become circular ...
Without more real substance, we would consider a lock.

Trumpy the thing is what compelling arguments are you referring to?

You keep saying the same rhetorical statements over and over again. Then you attempt to agument them with really weak reasoning and a dash of your own speculation.

Please. Most of what you've said has been countered or discredited already.

Kerry isn't perfect. However given Bush's actions over the last 4 years including an unnecessary war compel me to choose him over Bush any day.

-----------------------------------------------------------
" but I specifically have slammed him for spending, immigration and trade. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

So I take it you're voting for Kerry then?

Come on, like that will happen.

Even if he does it won't be the obvious and big faults, and he will probably say something like "At least he can't f*** things up any worse than the Shrub" or some other diversionary answer.

You're trying to win a logical argument with people that only use the emotional part of their brain.

It's a losing proposition for the most part, you have to dumb down the argument to get to something they can relate to. I am not saying that they are dumb, just that it is dumb to let emotion take total control of your reasoning skills.

Edit: Man am I good. In the ten minutes that it took me to read his post start to replyu take a short brake, and come back and finish he did exactly what I said he would do. Either I am psychic or Jimmac is all to predictable.

But this is actually a good argument.

It would be genuinely difficult to fuck things up any worse than your current President, who would still be an international laughing stockas he was before 9/11if the rest of the world wasn't so scared of what he's turned America into.

Huh.

So you feel it's OK to attribute a direct quote to someone if it is spoken by what you may regard as a "surrogate".

That's a pretty novel theory of attribution, but I'll be sure to bear it in mind the next time I want to arbitrarily slander someone.

The reality is that you just feel a little more comfortable coming out now that you've got a die hard-I don't know when to quit-guy like Trumpy posting here.

And talk about dumb down an argument a person has to repeat multiple times while you guys refuse to hear the parts you don't like and keep repeating the same garbage.

OK we lost the point again.

The premise of this thread was that people attacked Dole's record.

Nationally, in the mainstream, they didn't.

Nick you are full of shit. Unless you want to post say 100 or so mainstream article links to prove otherwise.

Next thread.

Oh and, what's Dole doing now? What's that? Attacking someone's record? I saw him on CNN as a commentator. He's a real dick. A limp one but still a dick.

He's like Rush or Buchanan. Just trying to get on TV to stay famous and rich. He just wants attention. So let's not give him or this thread any.

Here's bullet points so you can be sure to follow along:

--You attributed a direct quote to Kerry

--I contested the quote

--You then attributed it to surrogates, and suggested that I was denying that political surrogates ever spoke on behave of their principles

--I explained that I was perfectly aware that surrogates speak on behalf of their principles, but that was rather different than attributing a direct quote to the principle

--You quote me as saying that Karl Rove's surrogates have been up to no good, apparently thinking that puts the lie to my notion that attributing direct quotes to a principle when his surrogates have spoken is dishonest.

--You profess to find that funny, which it is, but not, I think, for the reasons you imagine.

Please let me know what part of this is too confusing for you so we can continue to sort it out. I have all the time in the world.

I dunno...Link It looks like the viagra is working.

What's truly sickening is how they place the blame for this on Kerry supposedly questioning Bush's record

two problems there:

Kerry did not question Bush's record but said that if Bush wanted to go there etc

and

Bush has no record . . . and to question its existence is a completely different beast than this dispicable display of dishonorable slime that perpetuates itself because it has gotten news

its like someone who is famous for being famous . . . we all know that they have no merit yet we still see their face everywhere.