Bush: Flip Flopper in Chief - DPChallenge Forums

08/19/2004 11:27:59 PM · #76

Originally posted by RonB:

Could you be a little less cryptic? I'm pretty familiar with the concept of time, but I really don't understand your response to my post.

Ron

It is quite simple. An indication of a desire to do something at some point in the future, does not mean it is the right thing to do immediately. For someone who makes a pretense to be so logical, you do seem to try very hard to miss an obvious point when it is suitable for your agenda.

08/19/2004 11:28:37 PM · #77

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Hmmm.

On Aug 1st, Kerry said:

"I will have significant, enormous reductions in the level of troops ...In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."

but then, 17 days later, after Bush announced a major redeployment of American troops overseas, including South Korea, Kerry said:

"Why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons. This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time."

Flip...Flop...Flip...Flop...

and here was me thinking you'd be able to handle the concept of time.

Tick... Tock... Tick... Tock...

Could you be a little less cryptic? I'm pretty familiar with the concept of time, but I really don't understand your response to my post.

Ron

This is a good illustration of the problems you and I have encountered in our exchanges. Here you've crystallized for me the impression I've had of your responses. Simply put, they are TOO BLACK AND WHITE/TOO LITERAL. I found it curious that you thought it necessary to comment on what clearly were just book summaries. Note that I included the links and books in that section simply as recommendations, for those that might have an interest on the subject media bias. To me, this post also illustrates just how people of our diametrically opposed political views tend to see the world. This is an old generalization, of course, but it seems that those that lean towards your world view see nothing but blacks & whites; while those that disagree with your world view see the vast greys that lie in-between the blacks & whites.

So its a case of either too literal or too liberal ?

08/20/2004 01:07:19 AM · #78

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Could you be a little less cryptic? I'm pretty familiar with the concept of time, but I really don't understand your response to my post.

Ron

It is quite simple. An indication of a desire to do something at some point in the future, does not mean it is the right thing to do immediately. For someone who makes a pretense to be so logical, you do seem to try very hard to miss an obvious point when it is suitable for your agenda.

Gordon, you got to the meat of what I was trying to communicate to Ron much clearly than I could.

08/20/2004 08:39:04 AM · #79

Originally posted by Gordon:

Ahhh. If that's the case, then the inability to handle the concept of time is one that I share with Kerry, and with you - since the redeployment of troops from South Korea announced by Bush does not take place immediately, either.

Secondly, that redeployement is not a new announcement - it was announced back in June.

Thirdly, South Korean officials said the (re-)announcement held no surprises. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters, "I donâ��t think there will be big changes for us".

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-08-20 08:58:37.

08/26/2004 02:53:34 AM · #80

Here's the reason why Mr. Bush will not condemn the group doing his dirty little work of character assassination:

For the first time this year in a [L.A.] Times survey, Bush led Kerry in the presidential race, drawing 49 percent among registered voters, compared to 46 percent for the Democrat.

And...

Although a solid majority of Americans say they believe Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, the poll showed that the fierce attacks on the senator from a group of Vietnam veterans criticizing both his performance in combat and anti-war protests at home have left some marks[.]
Bush Overtakes Kerry in Latest L.A. Times Poll [August 25, 2004]

Mr. Bush & Co. know that gutter-politics works, in spite of how much the public complains about it; since there's always a number of people that's predisposed to buy the lies, no matter how baseless the charges are.

Here's just one Associated Press article not getting anywhere near the same air time as the dirty charges made by Mr. Bush & Co., the headline reads: Navy records appear to support Kerry's version [August 25, 2004].

Of course, Mr. Bush will not condemn the group doing his work; because he knows that there are dividends -- consequences be damned. Just ask Mr. McCain. He knows how Bush & Co. operate, and the sort of dirty, nasty, stab-in-the-back ploys they use to stomp on the character of good and honorable men: just look at what Mr. Bush & Co. did to Mr. McCain during the 2000 Republican primary. Here's Mr. McCain confronting Mr. Bush at the time.

My hat's off to Mr. Bush & Co., however; because they've managed to distract us from far more important things going-on in our own time, not 35 years ago. Just today I read this: Distraught father torches self in Marine van. Florida man received news son had been killed in Iraq combat. [August 25, 2004]. About a week ago I posted the U.S. death toll in Iraq, it then stood at 936; the figure now stands at 967.

I'm hopeful that the American public will see through the lies of Mr. Bush & Co., and send him packing to his Crawford, TX, compound. Then, while Mr. Kerry gets on with the business of fixing the mess that Mr. Bush created, Republicans can focus on their own house. Perhaps they can start with the recommendations made by Mr. Buchanan in his book: Where the Right Went Wrong : How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency. [Amazon Link]

Message edited by author 2004-08-26 02:54:42.

08/26/2004 02:13:29 PM · #81

Wouldn't this be refreshing:

Kerry Challenges Bush to Weekly Debates [A.P. story]

Of course, Mr. Bush's handlers quickly rebuffed Mr. Kerry's suggestion.

How typical of Mr. Bush, when in the face of a real challenge he hides behind others. I wish Mr. Bush had the guts to accept the challenge, but somehow I just don't think he's manly enough go one-on-one on a weekly basis. Typical, Mr. Bush is completely gutless.

08/26/2004 02:33:31 PM · #82

Originally posted by bdobe:

I doubt its about guts, 'manly'ness or hiding. He's just obviously a terrible public speaker when he extemporises. It wouldn't make sense for him to do it on a weekly basis.

08/26/2004 02:49:31 PM · #83

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by bdobe:
Wouldn't this be refreshing:

Kerry Challenges Bush to Weekly Debates [A.P. story]

Of course, Mr. Bush's handlers quickly rebuffed Mr. Kerry's suggestion.

How typical of Mr. Bush, when in the face of a real challenge he hides behind others. I wish Mr. Bush had the guts to accept the challenge, but somehow I just don't think he's manly enough go one-on-one on a weekly basis. Typical, Mr. Bush is completely gutless.

I doubt its about guts, 'manly'ness or hiding. He's just obviously a terrible public speaker when he extemporises. It wouldn't make sense for him to do it on a weekly basis.

On a practical basis you're correct, Mr. Bush is a terrible off-the-cuff speaker, and has a hard time sounding coherent and intelligent without a teleprompter in front of him. But this sort of supports my point, if Mr. Bush had enough guts, he would confront the phobia he must feel about going out there on a weekly basis, one-on-one, without a script and accept Mr. Kerry's challenge. Besides, I think we all need to remember that these men are supposed to work for us, and if we think it beneficial to have the issues debated on a weekly basis by those seeking to be our President, then Mr. Bush should put whatever phobia/practical concerns aside, and do his public duty of keeping the American public informed on the issues that matter to us all.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/26/2004 02:53:37 PM · #84

Originally posted by Gordon:

I wouldn't mind hearing what either candidate would do, rather than about what they've done or not done in the last 30 years or so. It would be refreshing to hear about issues and not ad hominem attacks from either group. But that doesn't appear to be how politics work in the US - least not for the last 15 years or so that I've been paying attention.

Probably because its more about entertainment and ratings than issues and policy. The media seem to believe that nobody has an attention span longer tha

I just read your post elsewhere; so, perhaps, you're one of those that would find the weekly debates that Mr. Kerry proposed beneficial after all.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

08/26/2004 02:54:55 PM · #85

Originally posted by bdobe:

***I agree with Gordon...it's not about manlyness. Bush's campaign advisors need time to work with the president to prepare him for the possible questions he would need to address. It's not just that Bush is a terrible speaker (he really isn't...he's very good campaigning amoung the people) but I don't really think he's got a grasp of the issues, or knows them very superficially. Weekly debates would be political suicide for him as it would expose him for the slow poke he really is, and this would not go over well with the electorate. He will eventually have to face Kerry in debates, but maybe just 3 or 4 that are well controlled and that he's got time to prepare for. Imo, he will not look very presidential after debating Kerry no matter how many debates there are.

08/26/2004 04:12:47 PM · #86

Mr. Bush & Co., close observers of the Bush Dynasty note, are at it again:

Any student of Bush family campaigns could have seen the swift boat shiv shining a mile away. This old family has traditions - horseshoes, fishing, bad syntax and having the help do the dirty work in campaigns as well as the kitchen. And they are very good at getting jobs done without leaving fingerprints, without compromising their patrician image and their alleged character.
read the rest here, from CBSNews.com

08/26/2004 04:52:47 PM · #87

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I wouldn't mind hearing what either candidate would do, rather than about what they've done or not done in the last 30 years or so. It would be refreshing to hear about issues and not ad hominem attacks from either group. But that doesn't appear to be how politics work in the US - least not for the last 15 years or so that I've been paying attention.

Probably because its more about entertainment and ratings than issues and policy. The media seem to believe that nobody has an attention span longer tha

I just read your post elsewhere; so, perhaps, you're one of those that would find the weekly debates that Mr. Kerry proposed beneficial after all.

You actually think that if you got them in the same room they'd discuss issues at all ? Have you not watched political debates before ?

I quite like the BBC style of interviewing, where they ask a politician a question, listen to the answer that ignores the question, then calmly and politely reask the question again. Repeating as necessary. For entertainment value it can usually be good but it is also a lot more enlightening.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/26/2004 05:42:55 PM · #88

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by bdobe:
I just read your post elsewhere; so, perhaps, you're one of those that would find the weekly debates that Mr. Kerry proposed beneficial after all.

You actually think that if you got them in the same room they'd discuss issues at all? Have you not watched political debates before?

I quite like the BBC style of interviewing, where they ask a politician a question, listen to the answer that ignores the question, then calmly and politely reask the question again. Repeating as necessary. For entertainment value it can usually be good but it is also a lot more enlightening.

I agree, there are a lot of reforms that our electoral process could stand for. My wish-list of reforms would include:

1. Media reform so that Federal election candidates get free and reasonable access to the public air-ways -- they are our public air-ways, after all.

2. Dump the electoral college -- it's undemocratic, and unnecessary in the 21st century.

3. Campaign reform to get us closer to 100% public financing for Federal elections (or, at the very least, the presidency).

4. Viable and true multiparty representation, so that we're not limited to only two parties, giving us more choice -- it's the American way. Lord knows I like a Sprite every now and then, and not just Coke vs. Pepsi.

5. And, in the immediate future, more debates between presidential candidates where issues are debated; and where the media-talking-heads do their job (for once), stick to the issues and avoid the "he-said vs. he-said" scenario we all detest.

This is my wish-list. Of course, it's not very likely to happen any time soon. However, Mr. Kerry's proposal of conducting weekly debates between now and Nov. 2nd is certainly a good thing, if one is interested in hearing about the issues from the candidates themselves. I say let's let them go one-on-one, Mr. Kerry has already volunteered (like he did when he chose to go to Vietnam); Mr. Bush in the other hand... well, let's just say that Mr. Bush is AWOL, and has sent others to rebuff Mr. Kerry's proposal.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/26/2004 06:31:04 PM · #89

Originally posted by bdobe:

1. Media reform so that Federal election candidates get free and reasonable access to the public air-ways -- they are our public air-ways, after all.

2. Dump the electoral college -- it's undemocratic, and unnecessary in the 21st century.

3. Campaign reform to get us closer to 100% public financing for Federal elections (or, at the very least, the presidency).

4. Viable and true multiparty representation, so that we're not limited to only two parties, giving us more choice -- it's the American way. Lord knows I like a Sprite every now and then, and not just Coke vs. Pepsi.

5. And, in the immediate future, more debates between presidential candidates where issues are debated; and where the media-talking-heads do their job (for once), stick to the issues and avoid the "he-said vs. he-said" scenario we all detest.

This is my wish-list. Of course, it's not very likely to happen any time soon. However, Mr. Kerry's proposal of conducting weekly debates between now and Nov. 2nd is certainly a good thing, if one is interested in hearing about the issues from the candidates themselves. I say let's let them go one-on-one, Mr. Kerry has already volunteered (like he did when he chose to go to Vietnam); Mr. Bush in the other hand... well, let's just say that Mr. Bush is AWOL, and has sent others to rebuff Mr. Kerry's proposal.

I like your ideas but would go one step further. Get rid of political parties all together. No D or R, just candidates with views, opinions, and plans.

08/26/2004 10:07:58 PM · #90

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by bdobe:
I just read your post elsewhere; so, perhaps, you're one of those that would find the weekly debates that Mr. Kerry proposed beneficial after all.

You actually think that if you got them in the same room they'd discuss issues at all? Have you not watched political debates before?

I quite like the BBC style of interviewing, where they ask a politician a question, listen to the answer that ignores the question, then calmly and politely reask the question again. Repeating as necessary. For entertainment value it can usually be good but it is also a lot more enlightening.

I agree, there are a lot of reforms that our electoral process could stand for. My wish-list of reforms would include:

1. Media reform so that Federal election candidates get free and reasonable access to the public air-ways -- they are our public air-ways, after all.

Not a good idea at all. If all Federal election candidates got free and reasonable access to the public air-ways - the public air-ways would go out of business - there wouldn't be time to show anything OTHER than candidates in an election year. If you think FOUR candidates are bad, how would you feel about FOUR THOUSAND ( maybe even ME! )?

Originally posted by bdobe:

2. Dump the electoral college -- it's undemocratic, and unnecessary in the 21st century.

That's precisely why we need it - and it IS necessary. As I've explained elsewhere, if not for the electoral college voting in the city of Austin, Texas could effectively negate the vote of the entire state of Rhode Island. Talk about disenfranchising voters. Besides, our country is not a democracy - it never has been, and wasn't designed to be. We are a Democratic REPUBLIC. The difference is that we have REPRESENTATIVE government - and the REPRESENTATIVES are supposed to REPRESENT the people who elected them. In a true Democracy, we would have to undertake a national election for every little thing.

[quote-bdobe]3. Campaign reform to get us closer to 100% public financing for Federal elections (or, at the very least, the presidency).[/quote]
Another way to limit the free speech that the liberals CLAIM to support - make it against the law for anyone to purchase newspaper ads, or radio time, to present their views.

Originally posted by bdobe:

4. Viable and true multiparty representation, so that we're not limited to only two parties, giving us more choice -- it's the American way. Lord knows I like a Sprite every now and then, and not just Coke vs. Pepsi.

Earth to bdobe: We already DO support multiparty representation. Or do you not count Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik? ( For those of you who are liberals, let me explain - Ralph Nader is running for President on the Green Party ticket, and Michael Badnarik is running for President on the Libertarian Party ticket - You'd know who they were if bdobe's recommendations # 1 and # 3 were to pass...that is, if you could remember 2 names out of 4,000 ).

[quote]5. And, in the immediate future, more debates between presidential candidates where issues are debated; and where the media-talking-heads do their job (for once), stick to the issues and avoid the "he-said vs. he-said" scenario we all detest.[/quote]
I actually agree with this recommendation.

Originally posted by bdobe:

This is my wish-list. Of course, it's not very likely to happen any time soon.

Well, duh!

Originally posted by bdobe:

However, Mr. Kerry's proposal of conducting weekly debates between now and Nov. 2nd is certainly a good thing, if one is interested in hearing about the issues from the candidates themselves. I say let's let them go one-on-one,

so far...so good...but then...

Originally posted by bdobe:

Mr. Kerry has already volunteered (like he did when he chose to go to Vietnam);

But in Kerrylike fashion, that was AFTER he requested and was denied a deferment

Originally posted by bdobe:

Mr. Bush in the other hand... well, let's just say that Mr. Bush is AWOL, and has sent others to rebuff Mr. Kerry's proposal.

Or NOT...

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-08-26 22:09:23.

08/26/2004 10:13:11 PM · #91

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bdobe:
stick to the issues and avoid the "he-said vs. he-said" scenario we all detest.

I actually agree with this recommendation.

Well, we could all start walking the walk around here. That'd be a start.

Baby steps.

08/27/2004 04:38:33 AM · #92

Ron, you presume too much.

Originally posted by RonB:

The Green Party candidate is Mr. David Cobb, not Mr. Nader. Before you take on that omniscient tone, at least make sure you have the facts right. Oh, by the way, I don't need you to explain our form of government, Representative Republic vs. Democracy, Proportional Representation vs. our Winner Take-All system -- belive me, I'm very familiar with the concepts. And, if I were to need any edification on the subject, I'll consult a book before taking your word for it.

Originally posted by RonB:

As I've explained elsewhere, if not for the electoral college voting in the city of Austin, Texas could effectively negate the vote of the entire state of Rhode Island. Talk about disenfranchising voters. Besides, our country is not a democracy - it never has been, and wasn't designed to be. We are a Democratic REPUBLIC. The difference is that we have REPRESENTATIVE government - and the REPRESENTATIVES are supposed to REPRESENT the people who elected them. In a true Democracy, we would have to undertake a national election for every little thing.

By the way, you clearly didn't understand that the brief list of electoral/campaign reforms I provided was MY wish-list; and, as I noted, not likely to be adopted any time soon.

Originally posted by bdobe:

This is my wish-list. Of course, it's not very likely to happen any time soon.

As you clearly illustrated, unimaginative guardians of the status-quo will always stand in the way of greater inclusiveness and progress.

08/27/2004 08:55:22 AM · #93

Originally posted by bdobe:

The Green Party candidate is Mr. David Cobb, not Mr. Nader.

You are correct - I misspoke. Nader was running for the Green Party nomination, but was not selected as their nominee - Mr Cobb was. Mr. Nader is running as an Independent. So, that makes it FIVE candidates.

Originally posted by bdobe:

By the way, you clearly didn't understand that the brief list of electoral/campaign reforms I provided was MY wish-list; and, as I noted, not likely to be adopted any time soon.

Yes, I did understand that it was YOUR wish-list. And I posted my thoughts about your wishes.

Originally posted by bdobe:

As you clearly illustrated, unimaginative guardians of the status-quo will always stand in the way of greater inclusiveness and progress.

And YOU have clearly illustrated why the guardians are necessary.

Ron

08/27/2004 12:02:57 PM · #94

Originally posted by RonB:

You are correct - I misspoke.

Ron, looks like you have a habit of "misspeaking."

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

So, do I get this right, RonB?

You claim that Kerry contradicts his own TESTIMONY, except his "testimony" turns out to be an audiotape of an interview, not TESTIMONY in front of congress.

Because what you provided was Kerry on a TV show talking about what he said on a TV show 30-something years previously.

When I point this out, you correct me for the source of the original TV interview, but you don't apologize for falsely accusing Kerry of perjury, or for the misleading nature of your post, which keeps talking about TESTIMONY.

I then provide the actual transcript of Kerrys TESTIMONY to Congress, which is NOT contradicted under oath, or by his statements on TV, as far as I can see, and you... correct me.

Incredibly, however, you're so blinded by your hatred of Mr. Kerry -- or maybe it's simply hatred of all Democrats -- that while admitting that you're incorrect about the source, you strain to find something with which to attack Mr. Kerry:

Originally posted by RonB:

First, I will admit that the use of the word TESTIMONY in regard to the audiotape of an interview, was erroneous. For that, I do apologize.

But, since you have provided a transcript of his actual TESTIMONY before Congress, let me use that to re-iterate that if not for the statute of limitations, he could be charged with perjury. Given that TESTIMONY, consider this interview with Judy Woodruff (CNN) on Feb 18, 2004...

Unbelievable!

Message edited by author 2004-08-27 12:03:54.

08/27/2004 12:42:54 PM · #95

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
You are correct - I misspoke.

Ron, looks like you have a habit of "misspeaking."

You remind me of the charges of most married people:
If you did it once, you did it once, but if you did it twice, you "always" do it
If you didn't do it once, you didn't do it once, but if you didn't do it twice, you "never" do it.

I'm curious as to just how you define the word "habit"?

Note also that at least I admit when I misspeak or misquote, whereas most of those who disagree with me do not.

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-08-27 12:44:42.

08/27/2004 03:37:11 PM · #96

You'll find this and the rest of Mr. Kerry's military records at JohnKerry.com.

08/27/2004 04:04:00 PM · #97

Chris Johnson, president of the Whitman Baseball and Softball Association, digs a footing Sunday, Aug. 22, 2004, in Whitman, Mass., for an additional panel for a memorial to each of the more than 900 soldiers killed in the war in Iraq. (AP Photo/Lisa Poole) [see article here]

Here's a better article.

..........

The latest casualty count for U.S. forces is 971 (incredibly, about a week ago, when I first posted the figure on this board, the count was 932).

Message edited by author 2004-08-29 12:50:32.

08/27/2004 05:48:17 PM · #98

Originally posted by bdobe:

You'll find this and the rest of Mr. Kerry's military records at JohnKerry.com.

Well, not really "the rest", just "some" of the rest. For example, you won't find his request for deferment there, or the medical reports that purportedly support his medals.

08/27/2004 06:24:19 PM · #99

Here is the Republicans' greatest nightmare (high quality video), and here's the low bandwidth version.

If you haven't done so, please register to vote.