or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Hillary Melting Down?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Hillary Melting Down? - Page 5

post #161 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course you can! Because Vietnam vets, especially officers, tend to get pissed off when their ex-buddies tell the truth that they will do anything to get back at them for it. Even lie.

So were they lying when they gave a positive evaluation, or when they "flip-flopped" and suddenly screamed "No, these atrocities never happened! He's a Liar! And... and... and... he didn't really EARN his medals! Yeah! That's the ticket!"

There's proof of at least one lie in there. And which one do you think is the most probable one?

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME TRYING NOT TO USE YOUR BRAIN, NICK!

Like I've said a million times, you're smarter than that.

So they are to be believed when they are giving him positive evaluations and medals for committing atrocities such as they were doing. Committing atrocities like them makes him a war hero. The liars proved it by giving him what they gave all the other war criminals.

They are to be disbelieved when they say he is lying about atrocities and when they judge him as unfit for command because of alleging such things, separate from his military performance. They are also not to be believed since they are war criminals who committed atrocities and who will lie to cover it up, unless of course they are talking about Kerry being a war hero... at commiting atrocities... or something like that.

When he runs on the medals and declares himself a war hero, we should believe this to be true because those medals were given to him by people committing war crimes who would lie to cover it up and who gave him medals for committing similar actions as this. This would again make him a... um... a very good commander-in-chief?

That is some wonderful twisting there Tonton.

I'm smart enough to know that you have some very strangely politically expedient reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I'm being dismissive because the allegations about Kerry's medals have been debunked, not just by the "koolaid drinkers," but by neutral fact-check groups that looked at them.

I think we should rename the thread BRussell is Melting Down. Your refutation amounts to a few disputed facts and then attacking the messenger.

Yes and that is one of several claims in the ad. They also said he lied before the Senate. He was not honest about what happened in Vietnam, etc.

Quote:
He also discussed atrocities that he had heard others claim they had done. He didn't invent them, he didn't lie about them, he heard other people talk about them at a conference that many other people attended in addition to himself, and then he testified about that in front of congress. He can be criticized for doing that, but there is such a thing as truth and lies, and lying is wrong. Crazy, huh?

Yes and many of those testifying were found to be fabricating not only the claims, but their ranks, that they served at all, etc. He did much more than testify as well. He joined VVAW and also wrote a book, The New Soldier. All these actions are part of why John Oneill was wandering around debating him in 1971 instead of magically conjuring SwiftBoat Vets out of the air as a dirty trick in 2004 as you believe.

Quote:
What I'm getting from you is that the truth doesn't matter. Because Kerry claimed to be a war hero, people are allowed to lie about his record. It's fair game. It's all just one side and the other and we can't judge the truth, we just spin one way or the other.

You aren't getting anything from me because you are ranting in a circle with about the medals while failing to address my specific points made about Kerry in other areas. You've ignored the fact that he opted out of active duty in Vietnam to return home become an aide and begin alleging atrocities. You've not addressed it even once. You've not addressed how he made it a central point of his campaign and how pushing back against that and refuting it is not a dirty trick. (Unless you believe as you do that Republicans are just evil and shouldn't be allowed to campaign.) So you aren't getting anything from me. You are hung up about the medals and can't even move beyond it even though every post I have made has attempted to get back to the thread topic, Clinton.

Quote:
And I don't know what it has to do with Hillary Clinton. I'm an Obama supporter and I think Clinton is full of it when she tries to say she has more experience. Obama (not to mention Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Kucinich) has more years in elective office than Clinton. But that doesn't mean Republicans can lie and claim she is a lesbian or whatever other nonsense you people will come up with. I think Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, but that doesn't mean I'll say that he was behind 9/11.

Well I suppose when the heavily partisan and Republican funded Lesbians for Feminist Truth comes forward and alleges such things against Hillary, you will have a point. Since that won't happen I can presume you are full of poop. Hillary is running as the most experienced candidate when clearly she is not. There will be kool-aid drinkers defending her declaring that all that first lady experience amounts to the same thing as elected office and Republicans pointing it out, just as you now point it out, will be knocked as liars committing dirty tricks to keep her out of office.

Hell Clinton has already tossed people from her campaign for making note of Obama doing (or possibly selling) drugs and being Muslim, but even though it came from her campaign and she dismissed the people, it is really REPUBLICAN dirty tricks. Clinton has the most mysterious win in New Hampshire I have ever seen and of course it is REPUBLICAN dirty tricks that made her win via voter fraud.

Keep drinking that kool-aid. Keep getting the wrong thing from me and missing the point. I would say keep losing elections but Hillary is likely too good to do that.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #162 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Clinton has the most mysterious win in New Hampshire I have ever seen and of course it is REPUBLICAN dirty tricks that made her win via voter fraud.

Why do I get the feeling that someone is MIA in another thread they started with respect to the aforementioned lie?

Care to substantiate the above allegation with some FACTS?

Remember, thinking about voting for someone, isn't the same as actually voting for someone!

Are you trying to "Swift Boat" HRC?

It sure looks that way from my POV, ah, where do I sign the affidavit?

And then?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #163 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Why do I get the feeling that someone is MIA in another thread they started with respect to the aforementioned lie?

Care to substantiate the above allegation with some FACTS?

Remember, thinking about voting for someone, isn't the same as actually voting for someone!

Are you trying to "Swift Boat" HRC?

It sure looks that way from my POV, ah, where do I sign the affidavit?

And then?

You've got to stop using this combination of underline and bold, brah. You need to go to forum formattingaholics anonymous.
post #164 of 235
BRussell, I think you're forgetting that Kerry won his first Purple Heart for a "boo-boo" and "without shots".

The actions of these people, and the actions of those who helped spread their lies, are as utterly contemptible today as they were then.
post #165 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

You've got to stop using this combination of underline and bold, brah. You need to go to forum formattingaholics anonymous.

... because it's NOT in my nature to play by other people's rulez!

Also, why have bold, italics, underline, and all the other formatting tools to begin with anyway?

It's called punch, flail away, be my guest, it's all water off a duck's back from my POV, you'll never see me in charm school, ever.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #166 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It is not an open question. It was a false smear of the very worst kind. YOu can take all of the greatest war heros in history, and second-guess the medals and the events 30 years later, and say "there are legit questions." Well, they're not legit, they're false and despicable.

You must be kidding. Kerry was in Vietnam a short time. His wounds were extremely minor. He listed a medal on his website that didn't technically exist. He reenacted footage of himself on patrol. He used his service for political gain while trashing the troops he served with. Many of his allegations against them have been disputed repeatedly.

My point is this: His service may have been been honorable. Given that he did serve his country and there is no hard evidence of betrayal/lying/etc, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't negate the question being asked at all, and it certainly doesn't make him a "war hero."

By contrast, you're all too eager to indict George Bush's service record, even after it as discovered that the evidence used against him was straight-up fake. Here again, Bush may well have been AWOL so to speak, may have gotten special treatment, etc. But given the lack of hard evidence, he deserves the benefit of the doubt too. The difference is that Bush didn't run on his service record and didn't claim to be a war hero. Kerry did.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #167 of 235
He didn't go to Vietnam though. What's your point? Kerry went and whether if he was in the shit or working a desk job, he still went. More than I can say for Chimpy McFlightsuit or Dick Cheney for that matter.
post #168 of 235
Don't you love how soldiers and veterans are supposed to be treated with extreme honor and dignity, according to Republicans. Soldier's, as we've learned from the right, are also extremely emotional about criticism and open discussion about war policy.

Unless, of course, you're a f*cking Democratic veteran running for office. Then you're got it coming. And if you won any Purple Hearts, a double f*ck you!!!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #169 of 235
2004 has called and wants it's attempt to derail this thread back.

For those of us living in 2008, that right-wing rag, Slate, notes that faulty premise the Clinton campaign is built on. Experience is not one of Hillary's assets it notes and again, anyone who points it out won't be engaging in dirty tricks. Hillary is running on a false premise.

Quote:
In Slate's women's blog, the "XX Factor," various colleagues have argued (see here, here, and here) that Clinton has sufficient experience under her belt to be president. I agree, but that's not the right question. The more urgent question is: Where the hell does she come off claiming superior experience?

The chilling conclusion...

Quote:
Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #170 of 235
Slate is right of course. To me it feels like both parties have not been grooming candidates to run for president.

Hillary basically has no experience. She worked in a private law firm when her husband was governor. Then she was first lady and botched health care. They she was chauffeured to New York where she couldn't lose. She did good work in the Senate but ... didn't set the place on fire. Now her husband's supporters are putting her up for president. "HIllary smile, Hillary wave, Hillary cry."


Contrast that with Obama. Pounded nails in the community and then went to state legislature. From there he ran and won the Senate in his home state without the aid of his ex-president husband. Illinois is not an easy state to win in. His senate record is lacking because he's running too soon. He should go be governor for 8 years and then BOOM President Obama!

Richardson has way more experience than Hillary.

McCain would rip her apart too. His shady past isn't as detrimental as Hillary's is. Better hope Huckabee wins the nomination.
post #171 of 235
Right. And George W. was the bastion of experience before taking the job. LOL
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #172 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Right. And George W. was the bastion of experience before taking the job. LOL

Exactly. Look where we are now! If Gore and Kerry weren't such bad candidates we'd be in a better spot now.
post #173 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

He didn't go to Vietnam though. What's your point? Kerry went and whether if he was in the shit or working a desk job, he still went. More than I can say for Chimpy McFlightsuit or Dick Cheney for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Don't you love how soldiers and veterans are supposed to be treated with extreme honor and dignity, according to Republicans. Soldier's, as we've learned from the right, are also extremely emotional about criticism and open discussion about war policy.

Unless, of course, you're a f*cking Democratic veteran running for office. Then you're got it coming. And if you won any Purple Hearts, a double f*ck you!!!

All I'm saying is that the standard should be consistent. If there are open questions about Bush's record, there damn well should be about Kerry's, especially given the multitude of accusations made by his fellow soldiers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Right. And George W. was the bastion of experience before taking the job. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Exactly. Look where we are now! If Gore and Kerry weren't such bad candidates we'd be in a better spot now.

He was the Governor of Texas...one of the most popular in the state's history at that. He has an MBA from Harvard. In other words, he's had executive experience. Obama has about zero executive experience.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #174 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

All I'm saying is that the standard should be consistent. If there are open questions about Bush's record, there damn well should be about Kerry's, especially given the multitude of accusations made by his fellow soldiers.

The fellow soldiers associated with George W. Bush, Karl Rove and other connections?

Ok, I'm not trying to start up another swiftboat argument. The evidence shows that after the elections, it didn't matter to you or the public anymore whether the soldiers associated with this smear campaign recanted or were revealed to whom they really stood for. this is not in defense of Kerry either, he would not have made any difference if he was elected anyway. Just get the record straight.

Quote:
He was the Governor of Texas...one of the most popular in the state's history at that. He has an MBA from Harvard. In other words, he's had executive experience. Obama has about zero executive experience.

His governorship? His executive experience? You are very funny sometimes.
post #175 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

All I'm saying is that the standard should be consistent. If there are open questions about Bush's record, there damn well should be about Kerry's, especially given the multitude of accusations made by his fellow soldiers.





He was the Governor of Texas...one of the most popular in the state's history at that. He has an MBA from Harvard. In other words, he's had executive experience. Obama has about zero executive experience.

Look I'll try one more time.

The difference here is one of these guys is actually the president.
Who I think should be scrutinized closer than anyone since he controls so much power.

I think it's safe to say now that Kerry will never be president after much character assassination so it's a moot point.

Things will be different this time around as much of Bush's little mistakes are coming to the surface with greater frequency. Now I'm sure you'll say " What are you talking about? " " I don't understand " or " Bush isn't running this time ". That's ok because the rest of the world does understand.

It doesn't matter that Obama has no executive experience or that you think Ms. Clinton is the devil. The fact of the matter is that this time the republicans have made their own bed for many years and now will have to sleep in it. At the head of this is Mr. Bush himself.

The next president will not be a republican. And that's just the way it is.

And if you want someone to blame I suggest you look in the mirror. Because you reflect the same attitude that got them where they are today.

So it really doesn't matter if you, someone else on this forum, or on Fox News tries digging up some controversy about a democratic candidate. In this particular case the future is already written.

I don't mean this to offend. It's just the way things are.

Also it's really ok to have your opinions. It's a free country and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's just when we get a leader who has them that controls so much of our future it then becomes serious business.

These are just the facts.

I've read and watched the antics from several characters on this forum ( excusing what we've had that passes for a president ) for many years and now that it's almost over I felt compelled to say this.

Now you can accuse me of rambling or whatever and we can return to our regular debate now in progress.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #176 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He was the Governor of Texas...one of the most popular in the state's history at that. He has an MBA from Harvard. In other words, he's had executive experience. Obama has about zero executive experience.

Agreed, but you do know that Obama has a real degree from Harvard, right? I want Obama to go be governor of Illinois. I want the Dem's to start thinking NOW! about who they want to run in 20012 or 20016.


Please don't try to defend George. It's just makes you look bad, I mean worse.
post #177 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He was the Governor of Texas...one of the most popular in the state's history at that. He has an MBA from Harvard. In other words, he's had executive experience. Obama has about zero executive experience.

... but GWB didn't know a bloody thing. Sod 'executive experience.' Do you think Obama can name the president of India or Pakistan, SDW? And while I'm at it, big up GWB's love of the democratic process.

Remember this interview in 1999 with a US TV interview called Hiller?

Bush: "The new Pakistani General, he's just been elected - not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub- continent."

Hiller: "And you can name him?"

Bush: "General. I can name the general."

Hiller: "And it's . . ?

Bush: "General."

Hiller: "And the Prime Minister of India?"

Bush: "The new Prime Minister of India is - (pause) No."

To which George W. Bush retorted with a question to Andy Hiller:

Bush: "Can you name the Foreign Minister of Mexico?"

Hiller: "No sir, but I would say to that, I'm not running for President."
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #178 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

All I'm saying is that the standard should be consistent. If there are open questions about Bush's record, there damn well should be about Kerry's, especially given the multitude of accusations made by his fellow soldiers.

I hate how clueless my fellow republicans are.

Kerry volunteered from a safe berth in a DD to a 50 foot long boat that gets shot at from close range. I don't give a shit why he volunteered...that's still a lot more than what Bush or Cheney did. Serve in a war zone while a war is going on.

It's like not going to Iraq today.

His fellow soldiers hated Kerry for his vietnam protest actions (which were pretty damned stupid but that's not what they were dinging him on). I know a lot of military folks and they're human as the rest of us and the swiftboaters are scum. Of course they (as a group) will now be remembered, not for the dangerous duties the performed in Vietnam but for political smear campaigns. Swiftboating is now a commonly used term to describe a hateful smear job.

I suppose that's good enough for karmic balance except it harms all the other folks that had served on swift boats.
post #179 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

The fellow soldiers associated with George W. Bush, Karl Rove and other connections?

Ok, I'm not trying to start up another swiftboat argument. The evidence shows that after the elections, it didn't matter to you or the public anymore whether the soldiers associated with this smear campaign recanted or were revealed to whom they really stood for. this is not in defense of Kerry either, he would not have made any difference if he was elected anyway. Just get the record straight.

So the dozens that came forward were ALL lying, Bush stooges? Come on. Fine, then I want the same level of condemnation concerning the fake Bush docs.

Quote:



His governorship? His executive experience? You are very funny sometimes.

No, friend, you're funny. Gee, you found sources that paint Bush as a failure of a governor. Imagine that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #180 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Look I'll try one more time.

The difference here is one of these guys is actually the president.
Who I think should be scrutinized closer than anyone since he controls so much power.

Uh, and they were both running for President. Hello?

Quote:

I think it's safe to say now that Kerry will never be president after much character assaination so it's a moot point.

Kerry won't be President because Presidential losers don't usually come back to win.

Quote:

Things will be different this time around as much of Bush's little mistakes are coming to the surface with greater frequency. Now I'm sure you'll say " What are you talking about? " " I don't understand " or " Bush isn't running this time ". That's ok because the rest of the world does understand.

If you're saying that a good portion of the vote will still an anti-Bush vote, I agree. I saw some Democratic voters interviewed after the Las Vegas debate, and I literally busted out laughing. Most of the comments were literally "It's all Geroge Bush!" or "George Bush doesn't care about anyone except the rich!" and "gas prices are high because George Bush is making his oil buddies richer! He's a good ol' boy!" So yeah, I totally get how stupid Democratic voters are. Totally!

Quote:

It doesn't matter that Obama has no executive experience or that you think Ms. Clinton is the devil. The fact of the matter is that this time the republicans have made their own bed for many years and now will have to sleep in it. At the head of this is Mr. Bush himself.

I don't know that it "doesn't matter." I agree that Republican missteps aren't going to help at all.

Quote:

The next president will not be a republican. And that's just the way it is.

Could be. It depends. I wouldn't be confident of Hillary winning without a third party candidate to sap conservative/libertarian votes from the GOP.

Quote:

And if you want someone to blame I suggest you look in the mirror. Because you reflect the same attitude that got them where they are today.

First, I'm not looking to blame anyone. But if I was, I fail to see how it would be my fault. I haven't supported the things that's got the GOP in trouble, such as overspending.

Quote:

So it really doesn't matter if you, someone else on this forum, or on Fox News tries digging up some controversy about a democratic candidate. In this particular case the future is already written.

I don't mean this to offend. It's just the way things are.

Right, so we should just not ask questions of Democrats then. It's a foregone conclusion.

Quote:

Also it's really ok to have your opinions. It's a free country and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's just when we get a leader who has them that controls so much of our future it then becomes serious business.

You mean like, say, Hillary Clinton?

Quote:

These are just the facts.

Actually, those are your opinions. As you point out, opinions are fine.

Quote:

I've read and watched the antics from several characters on this forum ( excusing what we've had that passes for a president ) for many years and now that it's almost over I felt compelled to say this.

Now you can accuse me of rambling or whatever and we can return to our regular debate now in progress.

We'll see what happens, jimmac. I just wouldn't go placing any big bets.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #181 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, friend, you're funny. Gee, you found sources that paint Bush as a failure of a governor. Imagine that.

Gee, and you cite.............................................. ...................................nothing, again. \

Speaking of "swiftboating" John McCain will have to deal with these veterans.

Vietnam Veterans Against McCain

Quote:
The group Vietnam Veterans Against McCain attacks Senator John McCain's heroism as a POW in the Vietnam conflict; this is making some waves in the news due to McCain's presidential candidacy. The documentary "Missing, Presumed Dead the Search for America's POWs" however focuses more on Senator John McCain successfully blocking the release of classified POW/MIA documents.

Always wondered why McCain blocked those classified documents. Whatever the case, he's going to have to answer these people.
post #182 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Gee, and you cite.............................................. ...................................nothing, again. \

So I should defend a widely accepted notion--that GWB was a popular and successful TX governor- because you offer two bullshit sources? Really...get a job.

Quote:

Speaking of "swiftboating" John McCain will have to deal with these veterans.

Vietnam Veterans Against McCain



Always wondered why McCain blocked those classified documents. Whatever the case, he's going to have to answer these people.

Yeah, let's just switch topics. We talked about a Democrat's war record, so now we need to go after the current leading Republican.

But hey, let's talk about it. I watched the video and it's highly subjective and unsubstantiated (and remember...McCain is not my guy, at all). Even the people interviewed make reference to what his actions "seemed like" and ascribed all kinds of motives to his actions...motives they would have no clue about. It's a video about people's perceptions, people that are highly pissed off at the Pentagon--perhaps for good reason.

Now let's heck out their website. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

Hysterical much? Here's a guy who claims John McCain was directly responsibly for the death of American pilots:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh...pper_video.htm

Wait...here's something even better.

Quote:
Was John McCain Brainwashed by his
North Vietnamese Captors
to Destroy this Nation?

Was McCain blackmailed?

Is Vietnam still holding something over his head?

Was McCain brainwashed?

Yeah it's the same as the swiftboaters.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #183 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So I should defend a widely accepted notion--that GWB was a popular and successful TX governor- because you offer two bullshit sources? Really...get a job.

I do have a job, being your librarian. "Widely accepted"? Find it. I'm not going to be your teacher.

Quote:
Yeah it's the same as the swiftboaters.

First it wasn't my intension to divert the subject. Only that there is an election going on, and when a candidate rises up to prominence they will be attacked from all sides and many voters out there as gullible as you will be swayed by them, the media and all the other blogospheres, true or false.

I personally don't believe this groups allegations. The fact is that there is a POW/MIA lobby in the U.S. that does not like McCain because he has not kowtowed to their idea that there are hundreds of American POWs still in Vietnamese custody. To discredit him, they have taken to this very unseemly personal attack claiming things that have been disproved repeatedly. I'm hardly a McCain fanboy, but it is dishonest to repeatedly attack him on this issue when there are no facts to support these charges.

But many people will believe them. If they don't seek out and know the truth.

Well, you went to their website, good for you. Why not open up your bookmarks and cite some of your views. If you don't, you really don't have reason to respond to anything here.
post #184 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh, and they were both running for President. Hello?



Kerry won't be President because Presidential losers don't usually come back to win.



If you're saying that a good portion of the vote will still an anti-Bush vote, I agree. I saw some Democratic voters interviewed after the Las Vegas debate, and I literally busted out laughing. Most of the comments were literally "It's all Geroge Bush!" or "George Bush doesn't care about anyone except the rich!" and "gas prices are high because George Bush is making his oil buddies richer! He's a good ol' boy!" So yeah, I totally get how stupid Democratic voters are. Totally!



I don't know that it "doesn't matter." I agree that Republican missteps aren't going to help at all.



Could be. It depends. I wouldn't be confident of Hillary winning without a third party candidate to sap conservative/libertarian votes from the GOP.



First, I'm not looking to blame anyone. But if I was, I fail to see how it would be my fault. I haven't supported the things that's got the GOP in trouble, such as overspending.



Right, so we should just not ask questions of Democrats then. It's a foregone conclusion.



You mean like, say, Hillary Clinton?



Actually, those are your opinions. As you point out, opinions are fine.



We'll see what happens, jimmac. I just wouldn't go placing any big bets.

Stick a fork in it SDW. It's done to a turn.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #185 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I do have a job, being your librarian. "Widely accepted"? Find it. I'm not going to be your teacher.

How about winning reelection in a landslide? You can look up his popularity ratings and achievements yourself. I don't need to defend that which is literally common knowledge. I'll also remind you that even if he was not a successful governor (which he was), he still gained executive experience that Obama doesn't have.

Quote:


First it wasn't my intension to divert the subject. Only that there is an election going on, and when a candidate rises up to prominence they will be attacked from all sides and many voters out there as gullible as you will be swayed by them, the media and all the other blogospheres, true or false.

I personally don't believe this groups allegations. The fact is that there is a POW/MIA lobby in the U.S. that does not like McCain because he has not kowtowed to their idea that there are hundreds of American POWs still in Vietnamese custody. To discredit him, they have taken to this very unseemly personal attack claiming things that have been disproved repeatedly. I'm hardly a McCain fanboy, but it is dishonest to repeatedly attack him on this issue when there are no facts to support these charges.

But many people will believe them. If they don't seek out and know the truth.

Well, you went to their website, good for you. Why not open up your bookmarks and cite some of your views. If you don't, you really don't have reason to respond to anything here.

Then why cite the group at all? Of course people are going to believe things they shouldn't...and of course this group is whacko...but that doesn't mean the swifties were whacko as well. Seems that you're defending Kerry by indicting any group that attacks anyone on their service records.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #186 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Kerry won't be President because Presidential losers don't usually come back to win.

Interesting. Is this a glimpse into the inner mis-workings of a conservative mind? Or is SDW just daft?

Lesson for the day boys and girls:

Correlation (Party nominees who lose an election often don't come back to win the same office later) does not equal causation (...because...).

Idiots all around.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #187 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So I should defend a widely accepted notion--that GWB was a popular and successful TX governor- because you offer two bullshit sources? Really...get a job.

There is an equally if not more widely accepted notion that GWB was one of the worst governors Texas has had, further damaging the education system, slowing down infrastructure growth and greatly damaging the economy.
post #188 of 235
I also find the commonly or widely held notion argument to be intellectual weakness at its best. Widely held beliefs are not fact. Just because 2.7 B people believe there is a giant floating unicorn in space doesn't mean there is one.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #189 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Lesson for the day boys and girls:

Correlation (Party nominees who lose an election often don't come back to win the same office later) does not equal causation (...because...).

Well, the larger problem is that that is absolutely not true.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #190 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Also, why have bold, italics, underline, and all the other formatting tools to begin with anyway?

Swear words wouldn't be swear words if people used them freely and frequently.

Quote:
... because it's NOT in my nature to play by other people's rulez!

Ok. I'll make this very simple for you. I order you to always say "And Then?" and to always use absurd and irritating formatting when posting on forums. That is an order, and those are MY rules. OK? OK? AND THEN?
post #191 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How about winning reelection in a landslide? You can look up his popularity ratings and achievements yourself. I don't need to defend that which is literally common knowledge. I'll also remind you that even if he was not a successful governor (which he was), he still gained executive experience that Obama doesn't have.

You'll have to point me in some direction here. I. can't. find. squat.

Quote:
Then why cite the group at all? Of course people are going to believe things they shouldn't...

Sure, you are a good example of this. Not everything, you are knowledgeable in many other subjects. But as far as defending Bush/this administration, you are a loser. Not unless you can defend your claims. Which you don't.

Quote:
and of course this group is whacko...but that doesn't mean the swifties were whacko as well. Seems that you're defending Kerry by indicting any group that attacks anyone on their service records.

I'm not defending Kerry, I'm defending truth. The Swifties were influenced by the Bush party to slander another soldier by a candidate who's own military record (and the fact he never set foot in Vietnam) is dubious to say the least.
post #192 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, the larger problem is that that is absolutely not true.

facts smacts...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #193 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

facts smacts...

Heh. Just through 1920 there are eleven examples of people who ran for president losing only to be elected later.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #194 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Interesting. Is this a glimpse into the inner mis-workings of a conservative mind? Or is SDW just daft?

Lesson for the day boys and girls:

Correlation (Party nominees who lose an election often don't come back to win the same office later) does not equal causation (...because...).

Idiots all around.

I wasn't claiming anything so broad. I'm merely stating the those who lose Presidential elections don't often come back and win the office later. In fact, I can't think of one that did off the top of my head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There is an equally if not more widely accepted notion that GWB was one of the worst governors Texas has had, further damaging the education system, slowing down infrastructure growth and greatly damaging the economy.

Not according to those who voted for him in a landslide.

Quote:
(Artman) You'll have to point me in some direction here. I. can't. find. squat.

Sure..how's this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...ernor_of_Texas

Quote:

Sure, you are a good example of this. Not everything, you are knowledgeable in many other subjects. But as far as defending Bush/this administration, you are a loser. Not unless you can defend your claims. Which you don't.

I defend the administration when I think they are right, or when those making claims against them have no concrete evidence. Many times, I feel the administration is wrong. Four examples: 1) I have not seen evidence that convinces me that administration lied about WMD, despite all the the people out there that "know" they lied. 2) I have been exceptionally critical of Bush on immigration, where he is flat out on the wrong side of the issue. 3) I supported the Bush tax cuts and still do today. I have several reasons for my support if you'd like to get into it. 4) I do not approve of Bush's tolerance of unchecked spending. He has not performed well in this regard.

Of course, in your world the President is always wrong. Anyone who would actually defend an action taken is a "loser."

Quote:

I'm not defending Kerry, I'm defending truth



Quote:
The Swifties were influenced by the Bush party to slander another soldier by a candidate who's own military record (and the fact he never set foot in Vietnam) is dubious to say the least.

Let me get this straight: Attacks on Kerry that have not been proven false or even explained are "slander" because some of the swifties were Bush supporters, yet claims made by a major news organization based on documents that were proven forgeries make Bush's record "dubious?" I see. Interesting definition of slander you have.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #195 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Heh. Just through 1920 there are eleven examples of people who ran for president losing only to be elected later.

Name them. I'm talking about the general election, not primaries.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #196 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Name them. I'm talking about the general election, not primaries.

Well, you really ought to do your own homework, since you made the claim, but I'll get you started.

Adams "ran" against Washington in 1792 and lost only to win in 1796.
Monroe "beat" JQA in 1820 and JQA wins in 1824 against Jackson, who wins in 1828.
Buchanan loses to Pierce in 1852 only to win in 1856.
Cleveland lost to Harrison in 1888 only to win in 1892. (interesting replay of 2000)
TR lost fo McKinley only to win in 1904.
FDR (the veep candidate) lost to Harding in 1920.

I haven't run all the way up through the present, but remember that Nixon lost to JFK in 1960.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #197 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Sure..how's this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...ernor_of_Texas

Quote:
During his tenure, Bush signed the execution warrants for more death row inmates than any other Governor in Texas' history, averaging a death every nine days. [5] The only death penalty case among the 153 that came across George W. Bush's desk in his tenure as Texas Governor in which Governor Bush intervened and commuted the death sentence was that of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas.

WooHoo! Fail.

Quote:
Of course, in your world the President is always wrong. Anyone who would actually defend an action taken is a "loser."

Bush has far, far faaaaaaaar outweighed any president in history as far as failure. He makes Nixon and Clinton juvenile delinquents. If there is any president to hate, it's this one.

Quote:
Let me get this straight: Attacks on Kerry that have not been proven false or even explained are "slander" because some of the swifties were Bush supporters, yet claims made by a major news organization based on documents that were proven forgeries make Bush's record "dubious?" I see. Interesting definition of slander you have.

Bush's boots never touched Vietnamese soil nor did he fly his ass over it either. End of story.

Oh and speaking of Wiki...

Quote:
In May 1968, at the height of the ongoing Vietnam War, Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard despite[20] only scoring in the 25th percentile[21][22] on the pilot's written aptitude test, which was the lowest acceptable passing grade.[20] This was at a time when more than ten thousand Air National Guard personnel, many fighter pilots, had been called to active duty to serve both in Vietnam, and in support of operations there.[23] After training, he was assigned to duty in Houston, flying Convair F-102s out of Ellington Air Force Base.[24] Critics have alleged that Bush was favorably treated during his time of service due to his father's political standing and that he was irregular in attendance. The United States Department of Defense has released all of the records of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service which it says remain in its official archives.[21] In 1970 Bush applied to the University of Texas School of Law and was rejected.[25] Bush took a transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard in 1972 to work on a Republican senate campaign, and in October 1973 he was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard almost eight months early to attend Harvard Business School and completed his six-year service obligation in the inactive reserve.[26]

du·bi·ous
Pronunciation: \\ˈdü-bē-əs also dyü-\\
Function: adjective
1: giving rise to uncertainty: as a: of doubtful promise or outcome <a dubious plan> b: questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality <the practice is of dubious legality>
2: unsettled in opinion : doubtful <I was dubious about the plan>
post #198 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, you really ought to do your own homework, since you made the claim, but I'll get you started.

Adams "ran" against Washington in 1792 and lost only to win in 1796.
Monroe "beat" JQA in 1820 and JQA wins in 1824 against Jackson, who wins in 1828.
Buchanan loses to Pierce in 1852 only to win in 1856.
Cleveland lost to Harrison in 1888 only to win in 1892. (interesting replay of 2000)
TR lost fo McKinley only to win in 1904.
FDR (the veep candidate) lost to Harding in 1920.

I haven't run all the way up through the present, but remember that Nixon lost to JFK in 1960.

Well I'll be accused of backpedaling here, but I certainly wasn't looking back beyond last century. Even still, you're talking about handful of people at best. Your FDR example does not fit, btw..nor does TR. He didn't run against McKinley. They were both Republicans. Remember, I was talking about the general election alone.

In fact, according to this, Nixon is the only one to have ever done it. Cleveland was elected President, then lost reelection, then returned to win. That doesn't fit the bill either. Going back before 1800 really doesn't make sense, since there were so many candidates and no real two party system.

So, I'll be happy to admit I forgot about Nixon. I still think my statement holds weight. Those who lose Presidential elections don't come back and win later...with one notable exception.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #199 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well I'll be accused of backpedaling here, but I certainly wasn't looking back beyond last century. Even still, you're talking about handful of people at best. Your FDR example does not fit, btw..nor does TR. He didn't run against McKinley. They were both Republicans. Remember, I was talking about the general election alone.

In fact, according to this, Nixon is the only one to have ever done it. Cleveland was elected President, then lost reelection, then returned to win. That doesn't fit the bill either. Going back before 1800 really doesn't make sense, since there were so many candidates and no real two party system.

So, I'll be happy to admit I forgot about Nixon. I still think my statement holds weight. Those who lose Presidential elections don't come back and win later...with one notable exception.

Yeah. You're right. If you limit the scope of the inquiry and exclude a bunch of stuff, it totally fits with your claim. But whatever, dude. I got no horse in this race.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #200 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How about winning reelection in a landslide? You can look up his popularity ratings and achievements yourself. I don't need to defend that which is literally common knowledge.

So by your logic Pete Wilson was one of the best governors California has ever had...

A history lesson:

Pete Wilson at one point had the worst approval ratings in the governorship of California in history. He then pushed for a law, which he knew was unconstitutional and could not possibly pass, that appealed to the anti-Mexican voting block. He "won reelection by a landslide". The law he was pushing for was declared unconstitutional, of course. He then went on to kill California's economy.

George W. Bush, facing reelection, appeals to the Texan "good ol' boy" crowd and gets reelected, because good Texas boys like to play cowboys and Indians and good Texas girls support their man.

Reelection != success.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Hillary Melting Down?