or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush has a magic time machine
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush has a magic time machine  

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Magical mystery tour

Or at least that is what some here would have us believe with their baseless assertions.

It has been asserted here repeatedly that Bush only criticized Democratic 527's like Moveon.org in an attempt to deflect criticism about SwiftBoat Vets and their attacks on Kerry, which of course Democrats link to Bush.

The reasoning is that Democrats would of course have a problem with SwiftVet's and their actions, so Bush would have a problem with left leaning groups and thus regular folks would just dismiss it as politics. People dismissing it would prove Bush is evil because, hey those SwiftBoat guys are really evil liars. It's not fair to dismiss evil liars as "politics as usual" because the Democratic 527's never lied about Bush and didn't act in kind etc.

Except, the reality is that we can see in the link above, that Bush filed complaints against Democratic leaning 527's in MARCH before SwiftBoat had ever run a single ad.

I like this bit.

Quote:
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, the campaign argued that the FEC is taking too long to address what the campaign calls illegal spending of corporate, union and big individual donations to influence the presidential race. Its lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction that would force the commission to act on its March complaint within 30 days. After that, the campaign could sue to block the groups' activities through court action rather than relying on the FEC.

Now of course some of us contended that SwiftBoat formed from the Kerry book in January and that Bush had been hit with millions of dollars of critical ads for months by groups that were obviously in collusion.

Quote:
Outside groups trying to deny Bush a second term have spent more than $60 million on advertising, far outstripping organizations sympathetic to the president that have vowed a late campaign drive to match their rivals.


How can one be progressive and expect someone like me to change their mind about their candidate when they use $60 million of unregulated soft money to illegally influence an election.

Sad... and claiming Bush was only critical to protect SwiftBoat when he had already filed a complaint, absolutely wrong.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #2 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Magical mystery tour

Or at least that is what some here would have us believe with their baseless assertions.

It has been asserted here repeatedly that Bush only criticized Democratic 527's like Moveon.org in an attempt to deflect criticism about SwiftBoat Vets and their attacks on Kerry, which of course Democrats link to Bush.

The reasoning is that Democrats would of course have a problem with SwiftVet's and their actions, so Bush would have a problem with left leaning groups and thus regular folks would just dismiss it as politics. People dismissing it would prove Bush is evil because, hey those SwiftBoat guys are really evil liars. It's not fair to dismiss evil liars as "politics as usual" because the Democratic 527's never lied about Bush and didn't act in kind etc.

Except, the reality is that we can see in the link above, that Bush filed complaints against Democratic leaning 527's in MARCH before SwiftBoat had ever run a single ad.

I like this bit.



Now of course some of us contended that SwiftBoat formed from the Kerry book in January and that Bush had been hit with millions of dollars of critical ads for months by groups that were obviously in collusion.




How can one be progressive and expect someone like me to change their mind about their candidate when they use $60 million of unregulated soft money to illegally influence an election.

Sad... and claiming Bush was only critical to protect SwiftBoat when he had already filed a complaint, absolutely wrong.

Nick


You know in light of what happened with the Iraq war and our original reasons for going there ( yes Trumptman that means the nonexistant WOMD which their possibility was the only thing that got this war off the ground ) anyone bringing up this nonissue is nothing but laughable.

Bush is a liar pure and simple.

I don't want a proven liar for our president.

Nuff said!

As they say : " The proof is in the pudding! "

And the Iraq pudding has already been made.

We could talk about the economy over the past 4 years or the dozens of other reasons not to want Bush but lying to start a war that cost hundreds of billions ( and counting ) is enough I think.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #3 of 24
yawn
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #4 of 24
People losing interest in the last SBDFT thread (Swift Boat Douchebags for Truth) is not a good reason for starting yet another thread about it. Mods, can we get a little thread merge action going on?
post #5 of 24
Lemme see if I got it right ? It's "simplistic" to call terrorists and the countries that support them "evil" Yet SBVfT are evil?
post #6 of 24
Quote:
It has been asserted here repeatedly that Bush only criticized Democratic 527's like Moveon.org in an attempt to deflect criticism about SwiftBoat Vets and their attacks on Kerry, which of course Democrats link to Bush.

No, it has been asserted here repeatedly that Bush kept it too general by merely saying "all 527s are bad" when repeatedly asked to denounce a specific one. He avoided denouncing SBVfT specifically for a reason. That's what has been asserted. Completely different.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #7 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
No, it has been asserted here repeatedly that Bush kept it too general by merely saying "all 527s are bad" when repeatedly asked to denounce a specific one. He avoided denouncing SBVfT specifically for a reason. That's what has been asserted. Completely different.

If he denounces all 527's, doesn't that include SBVfT?

When I read something like this for example...

Quote:
By linking 527s as the equalizing factor, the admin conveniently glosses over the fact that the left has never run anything like the SBVT smear.

along with what you've posted. It appears that you believe Bush's condemnation of ALL 527's not credible since he didn't have a problem with 527's before being asked to condemn SBVfT.

But the point is, that he has repeatedly had problems with 527's and even filed a complaint about it back in March.

To me it seems very consistant with regard to Bush and his actions. Bush has condemned all 527's, praised Kerry's service and even called it more heroic than his own.

I mean what more do you want from the guy? Especially when NOTHING, repeat NOTHING is expected of Kerry.

Bush opened all his medical records. Kerry did not.

Bush says that WOMD were not the only justification for Iraq and is called a liar. Kerry says that even without the WOMD he still would have authorized and he is called... the truth I suppose.

Kerry questioned the service of Bush and of many of his commanding officers in statements and publications this year. He did so, especially with regard to the commanding officers, completely UNPROVOKED. Yet, them setting the record straight is an "attack", a "lie", etc.

I think the left wants one giant speech code where only one side gets to talk, attack and respond. They can do anything they want by their justification.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #8 of 24
OK Nick I'll explain how things work to you in case you're not just being disingenuous as usual (man I have to use that word a lot with this guy and scott and sdw.)

Lots of individuals, for example, Donald Trump, are vastly rich in America. They give or used to give a TON of money to Republicans. That was considered "hard money." Democrats don't have such a base because well, they are for the people. Huge special interests also formed organizations to give to the GOP. Not individual candidates. That is "soft money." However there are a lot of organizations like environmental groups that also formed to support Democrats and counter huge contributions from fat cat Republicans and their constituents. 527's were formed to counter just this. They get around the "soft money" McCain-Feingold act.

So now do you see why Bush hates 527's so much? Because it's the only way Democrats can fund raise. And his campaign probably intentionally created the "Swift Boat Vet" group to raise this issue so they could kill them for next election cycle. Those bastards. And don't tell me SBV4T aren't connected to the GOP. They are. Do some googling.

It's dirty politics and the GOP is good at it because they have to cover up the fact they are ripping off the average American. They use things like Christianity to string along Jesus freaks, and wedge issues like gay marriage to distract the country and the media. Karl Rove and co are behind it all. It's like Wag the Dog. Seen it? Go see it. Parallels directly to Iraq... It's eerie.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
post #9 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
OK Nick I'll explain how things work to you in case you're not just being disingenuous as usual (man I have to use that word a lot with this guy and scott and sdw.)

Lots of individuals, for example, Donald Trump, are vastly rich in America. They give or used to give a TON of money to Republicans. That was considered "hard money." Democrats don't have such a base because well, they are for the people. Huge special interests also formed organizations to give to the GOP. Not individual candidates. That is "soft money." However there are a lot of organizations like environmental groups that also formed to support Democrats and counter huge contributions from fat cat Republicans and their constituents. 527's were formed to counter just this. They get around the "soft money" McCain-Feingold act.

So now do you see why Bush hates 527's so much? Because it's the only way Democrats can fund raise. And his campaign probably intentionally created the "Swift Boat Vet" group to raise this issue so they could kill them for next election cycle. Those bastards. And don't tell me SBV4T aren't connected to the GOP. They are. Do some googling.

It's dirty politics and the GOP is good at it because they have to cover up the fact they are ripping off the average American. They use things like Christianity to string along Jesus freaks, and wedge issues like gay marriage to distract the country and the media. Karl Rove and co are behind it all. It's like Wag the Dog. Seen it? Go see it. Parallels directly to Iraq... It's eerie.

Actually you pretty much showed me you have no idea about campaign finance law, limits, etc. I mean you don't even understand the basic terminology.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #10 of 24
Where, in anything I said, did I reference a change in attitude from before the SBVfT to after?

Bush is asked directly to denounce the SBVfT. Instead of doing that, he says "all 527s are bad".

He does not do that which he is asked, there is a reason. He is diluting the vile nature of the SBVfT in the muddy water of the 527 masses.

Again, where is there any kind of reference to "before SBVfT" or "after SBVfT"?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Where, in anything I said, did I reference a change in attitude from before the SBVfT to after?

Bush is asked directly to denounce the SBVfT. Instead of doing that, he says "all 527s are bad".

He does not do that which he is asked, there is a reason. He is diluting the vile nature of the SBVfT in the muddy water of the 527 masses.

Again, where is there any kind of reference to "before SBVfT" or "after SBVfT"?

I didn't say it was you alone or you specifically.

But again, Kerry didn't do what was asked either. He was asked if he endorses what 527's are doing and specifically if he would denounce 527 actions and would not address either.

If anyone should be condemned, it should be Kerry who uses the response of a group of people he specifically attacked as a cover for millions of unregulated dirty money.

Vile indeed...

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually you pretty much showed me you have no idea about campaign finance law, limits, etc. I mean you don't even understand the basic terminology.

Nick

He's right on, even if his verbage is a little rough. Everyone knew that Democrats relied on soft money to counter the huge Republican advantage in hard money. Everyone knew that McCain-Feingold would almost certainly help Republicans, by restricting soft money and raising the hard money limits. To the many Democrats who voted for it, though, it at least seemed a step in the right direction, even if their party took a hit. I don't think anyone anticipated the rise of 527s; if Democrats did, they kept their mouths shut about it.

So Republicans thought they had acheived a coup. They were blindsided when 527s sprang up to absorb all that formerly Democratic soft money. All this fury about how 527s are all evil is just Republicans playing politics. They thought they had won by restricting soft money; they didn't. Even worse, they got beat to the punch by the lefties. Like rubbing salt in a wound. They thought they would go into this election outspending the Dem's by 2-1 or more; Bush's re-election plan virtually counted on it. Instead, it's been even. If you can't beat 'em, claim the game's not fair. Even if you're playing with your own stacked deck.
post #13 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
He's right on, even if his verbage is a little rough. Everyone knew that Democrats relied on soft money to counter the huge Republican advantage in hard money. Everyone knew that McCain-Feingold would almost certainly help Republicans, by restricting soft money and raising the hard money limits. To the many Democrats who voted for it, though, it at least seemed a step in the right direction, even if their party took a hit. I don't think anyone anticipated the rise of 527s; if Democrats did, they kept their mouths shut about it.

He's not on because he seems to believe that the Republican advantage in hard money was created by large donations by the rich. Hard money is called that for a reason. It is severely restricted. He implies that having someone like a Donald Trump is favorable. How can this be so when even the Donald was limited to a $1000 donation?

Democrats are just as capable of raising hard money as Republicans. They have shown that in this election with Kerry raising $233 million.

But when I see a comment like this....


Quote:
Lots of individuals, for example, Donald Trump, are vastly rich in America. They give or used to give a TON of money to Republicans.

That is a fundimental disconnect because the hard money was $1000 then and $2000 now. Donald Trump could give no more than any other person to shape an election.

The Democrats didn't keep their mouth shut about it. They knew they were creating the loophole while voting for it. McCain has declared that the loophole isn't really a loophole. It is Democratic leaning groups basically breaking the law which is why Bush had asked for action back in March. But the reality is that Democrats knew they weren't giving away their soft money, they already knew how they were going to divert it. It is the Republicans who got caught flatfooted because they actually followed the law instead of breaking it. If you look at candidate and party campaign spending the candidates are quite close. If you look at 527 spending, it isn't even close.

Quote:
So Republicans thought they had acheived a coup. They were blindsided when 527s sprang up to absorb all that formerly Democratic soft money.

No Republicans thought they were following the law. Democrats already knew they were going to break it. It is the Republicans who were blindsided. Again it shows the fundimental disconnect of Aquatic's understanding. He somehow things that the Republican's had some huge advantage because people were writing $5-10 million dollar checks when in reality it is the Democrats who have relied on unlimited soft money.

Also you need to address the fact that the soft money wasn't a problem because it was Democratic or Republican. It was a problem because it is considered to be corrupting and influencing. You make it sound like it was banned simply because Democrats had an advantage there. It was banned because someone writes you a ten million dollar check, and people find it hard to believe you don't owe them a few favors.

Aquatic makes this claim...

Quote:
Democrats don't have such a base because well, they are for the people.

Again a disconnect because if you are "for the people" you should be advantaged in a system that requires lots of small donations from everyone instead of allowing a few people to write big soft money checks. Instead it is the Republicans who get loads of small donations "from the people" while Democrats are and were getting their money by having a few peole write big checks.

Quote:
All this fury about how 527s are all evil is just Republicans playing politics.

Wrong, but thanks for saying it since Grove seemed to believe that no one was making that claim.

These groups are breaking the law. Soft money is always supposed to be used for get out the vote efforts and things of that nature. It is not supposed to be used for television commercials.

I mean take the basic nature of the complaint about SwiftVets, it is that a few rich guys (Republican rich guys in this instance) can run some ads (lies as claimed by the left) and affect the entire election. They say this is wrong and they are right not because of what has been said, but because a few people deciding for all of us by outspending us limits speech. That is why Bush condemned all 527's during this election cycle because soft money shouldn't be used to give the very rich a huge voice. That is why all this campaign finance reform happened in the first place.

So Bush was right in filing a complaint in March, and right in condemning all 527's who are spending soft money on television and other ads which specifically mention a candidate. Again it is easy to see the consistancy of reasoning and argument there.

Campaign finance reform is about limited speech so that the little guy doesn't get shouted down by the big guy. It is about not allowing the big guys to buy the election. Aquatic alleges that it is the Republicans who are using their big guys and big donations to shout down the "people" who can only give little donations. The reality is the opposite. It is the Republicans who are best at raising small donation hard money from lots of people. Aquatic calls special interest groups "soft money." That isn't true. Soft money is any large donation that is supposed to be used for non-speech purposes. Voter registration, getting out the vote, driving people to vote, calling them and asking them to vote, that doesn't limit or overwhelm speech. That is actually helpful because spending money to help people exercise their right to vote is considered great.

But again, using soft money for speech, that is not considered to be an advantage to the "people." It is considered to be corrupting. Thus the fact that Democrats seem only capable of getting money via large donations from a few people means they are the ones who are beholden to special interests. They can't get the money any other way and so the alternative is lose. Lose or be under the influence of special interests, it is clear which side of that coin the Democrats have been on for years. Union money, trial lawyer money, etc.

The point is then you adjust your views so the "people" will donate to you. Instead it is the Democrats who allow the super-rich to attempt to buy elections claiming the interests of "the people."

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #14 of 24
Quote:
But again, Kerry didn't do what was asked either. He was asked if he endorses what 527's are doing and specifically if he would denounce 527 actions and would not address either.

Never said he did. Neither did I start a thread attacking a straw man argument. (Which Scott eagerly followed with his "evil" strawman. Are conservatives born intellectually dishonest or are they taught that later?)
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #15 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Never said he did. Neither did I start a thread attacking a straw man argument. (Which Scott eagerly followed with his "evil" strawman. Are conservatives born intellectually dishonest or are they taught that later?)

Umm... you should really try making sense.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If he denounces all 527's, doesn't that include SBVfT?

When I read something like this for example...



along with what you've posted. It appears that you believe Bush's condemnation of ALL 527's not credible since he didn't have a problem with 527's before being asked to condemn SBVfT.

But the point is, that he has repeatedly had problems with 527's and even filed a complaint about it back in March.

To me it seems very consistant with regard to Bush and his actions. Bush has condemned all 527's, praised Kerry's service and even called it more heroic than his own.

I mean what more do you want from the guy? Especially when NOTHING, repeat NOTHING is expected of Kerry.

Bush opened all his medical records. Kerry did not.

Bush says that WOMD were not the only justification for Iraq and is called a liar. Kerry says that even without the WOMD he still would have authorized and he is called... the truth I suppose.

Kerry questioned the service of Bush and of many of his commanding officers in statements and publications this year. He did so, especially with regard to the commanding officers, completely UNPROVOKED. Yet, them setting the record straight is an "attack", a "lie", etc.

I think the left wants one giant speech code where only one side gets to talk, attack and respond. They can do anything they want by their justification.

Nick


Please! It's the main justification he used when he wanted support for the war last year! You and I both know this war wouldn't have got off the ground without the WOMD question.

What Bush is doing now is backpeddling.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
It's the main justification...

It's not the only justification and wasn't ever the only justification, which is exactly what Trumpt was saying.
post #18 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Please! It's the main justification he used when he wanted support for the war last year! You and I both know this war wouldn't have got off the ground without the WOMD question.

What Bush is doing now is backpeddling.

You know, you can claim it wouldn't have gotten off the ground, but the point is it still would have gotten the vote of John Kerry. If you think that an extreme position, then you are entitled to it, but don't complain when the rest of us won't follow you don't that narrow path.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You know, you can claim it wouldn't have gotten off the ground, but the point is it still would have gotten the vote of John Kerry. If you think that an extreme position, then you are entitled to it, but don't complain when the rest of us won't follow you don't that narrow path.

Nick

You're saying Kerry would have still voted to GIVE PERMISSION TO THE PRESIDENT to go to war (he never actually voted for war itself) with Iraq, without any of the WoMD "evidence" that was presented? Wow, you're even more disconnected from reality than I thought.
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #20 of 24
OK so Towel explained it better.

Nick I guess you were just being disingenuous. I'm done with this thread.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
You're saying Kerry would have still voted to GIVE PERMISSION TO THE PRESIDENT to go to war (he never actually voted for war itself) with Iraq, without any of the WoMD "evidence" that was presented? Wow, you're even more disconnected from reality than I thought.

No dipshit. Stop reframing the question since you don't like the answer.

Here maybe this source will stop you from believing everything Kerry did in October of 2002 is more than just "Republican spin."

CommonDreams.org

Quote:
Back in October 2002, when Senator Kerry voted to grant President Bush a blank check to make war, he tried to scare the American public into thinking that such an invasion was essential to the defense of the United States. Despite a lack of credible evidence, Kerry categorically declared that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and even claimed that most elements of Iraqs chemical and biological weapons programs were larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Furthermore, Kerry asserted that Iraq was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, backing up this accusation by claiming that all U.S. intelligence experts agree with such an assessment. He also alleged that Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraqs neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

Every single one of these claims, no less than similar claims by President Bush, was false. Despite this, however, Senator Kerry and his supporters somehow want the American public to trust him enough to elect him as the next president of the United States.

Now the next paragraph is the best bit for people like yourself who want to have it both ways... war aggressor and pacifist in one...

Quote:
Senator Kerry and his supporters claim that he was fooled by exaggerated reports about Iraqs military prowess from the administration. However, there were other senators who had access to the same information as Kerry who voted against going to war. Furthermore, former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter personally briefed Senator Kerry prior to his vote on how Iraq did not have any dangerous WMD capability; he also personally gave the senator at his request an article from the respected journal Arms Control Today making the case that Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed. Members of Senator Kerrys staff have acknowledged that the senator had access to a number of credible reports challenging the administrations tall tales regarding the alleged Iraqi threat.

Kerry claimed that he would be the first to speak out against the war if he considered it unjust and wrong. Another flip-flop I guess...

Quote:
However, Senator Kerry broke that promise. When President Bush abandoned his efforts to gain United Nations Security Council authorization for the war in late February 2003 and pressed forward with plans for the invasion without a credible international coalition, Kerry remained silent.

When President Bush actually launched the invasion soon afterwards, Senator Kerry praised him, co-sponsoring a Senate resolution in which he declared that the invasion was lawful and fully authorized by the Congress and that he commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President . . . in the conflict with Iraq.

There is more of course, but the point is Kerry has tried to portray his vote two ways. The real anti-war supporters expose his record for what it truly is, support for Bush.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
No dipshit. Stop reframing the question since you don't like the answer.

Look shithead - it's not MY fault you can't clearly state what you mean. You could try clarifying your point, instead of being an asswipe, but you obviously get too much enjoyment out of it.

Go ad-hom yerself!!!!!

IBL - I'm done with this one.
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #23 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Look shithead - it's not MY fault you can't clearly state what you mean. You could try clarifying your point, instead of being an asswipe, but you obviously get too much enjoyment out of it.

Go ad-hom yerself!!!!!

IBL - I'm done with this one.

So be done. You tried to spin the question into something else instead of addressing it. I took a left of center source and proved you totally wrong. Kerry is trying to be a war agressor and pacifist at the same time and it doesn't work. Nonsense like "he though he was voting for X, not Y" is just bull as the article I mentioned above illustrates. There were later statements, later votes, and more evidence to show that Kerry fully understood that he was voting for war and that the war may have not even found WOMD's. Anything else you try to toss out to blur that fact is just spin.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #24 of 24
This thread is closed. The original poster of this thread do not have the right to insult others posters.

This is a warn. Next time it will a ban for everypeople involved in such exchanges.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush has a magic time machine