Senator Kerry in '04! - Page 5

**CingularDuality** · 10-24-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eternal

Hehe, like I said, anything that doesn't follow your political beliefs. How could you make an informed opinion and say "I REALLY looked over the page" if you are then going to say "I did not go to any other pages on that site". That sounds like something dubyah might say.

Umm, I don't know... I REALLY looked over that one page. I checked out their sources and examined their lack of contextual quoting. I didn't go to any of their other pages. What more do you want?

**CingularDuality** · 10-24-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eternal

They quote aspects of interviews that back up what they are trying to say, then at the end of the quote they supply links to the source in it's entirety.

I know. I read them. And it shows that they are nothing but propaganda. There are a couple of valid points in there, but most of 'em are BS. Have YOU read them?

**CingularDuality** · 10-24-2004, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eternal

Hehe, nice try.

Yes I read the pages ad nauseum.

OK, then post one of the points from that page that you think is valid and the good people of TG can decide if it's a valid point or pure garbage...

**luna** · 10-24-2004, 07:20 PM

You know I love ya, Eternal- but I have to lean towards Cingular after reviewing the site you suggested. There is plenty of evidence on the site of where Bush stands. The problem is when you go and check the sources, you see a different picture than what the site would lead you to believe. Here's an example:

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

More complete context, same source:

Quote:

The Avalanche-Journal reported: "Bush said he opposes the pro-life amendment favored by Reese and favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question. 'That does not mean I'm for abortion,' he said."

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

More complete context, same source:

Quote:

MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Governor Bush. If elected president, would you try to overturn the FDA's approval last week of the abortion pill RU-486?

BUSH: I don't think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more rare in America, and I'm worried that that pill will create more abortions and cause more people to have abortions. (snip) I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born or unborn, need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. (snip) Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. As to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug. (snip)

MODERATOR: On the Supreme Court question. Should a voter assume -- you're pro-life.

BUSH: I am pro-life.

I see Bush saying that he believes all life is valuable, but ultimately the decision is up to the mother and her doctor. The short quotes posted by the site would lead you to believe that Bush was once one way, then later another. After checking the context, I see him consistently saying the same thing.

*shrug*

I could go for other examples, but that would require more copy/pasting. As such, I will spare you all.

**CingularDuality** · 10-24-2004, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eternal

I have given you what you asked for, why don't YOU find statements from that site and dispove them with factual data. I don't want a bunch of political fanboys opinions, we are talking cold hard facts.

I'm only doing this because it's YOU asking... I normally wouldn't bother with such obvious tripe. Besides, Luna already pointed one out.

I wanted you to simply pick one so that could do what Luna did, but I'll pick another one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eternal's site

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ari Fleischer as referenced

Q Ari, on that topic, why does the White House continue to resist the idea of making the Office of Homeland Security a Cabinet-level department with its own budgetary authority and its own responsibility to Congress?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that the Office of Homeland Security, under Governor Ridge, is working extraordinarily well. It is fulfilling the exact mission that the President set out for homeland security when the President announced it in the wake of the attack on our nation.

If you remember, the President's speech to Congress on September 20th announced that for the first time the White House will have an Office of Homeland Security, that really is parallel to the long-standing bipartisan tradition of the Office of National Security. It is a coordinating entity that works with the operational agencies.

The President believes that Governor Ridge is doing a superb job at it. He believes that Governor Ridge is an excellent advisor to him, and that the Governor does a very important function for the President and the White House by coordinating the various agencies, just as the National Security Advisor does in her capacity.

At this time, there was no approved bill proposing the Department of Homeland Security. Just rumors and gossip. Discussion and debate. The administration indicated that they thought an advisor rather than a new cabinet member would be fine. These remarks were regarding Tom Ridge's position and whether or not it should be as an advisor or as a member of the President's cabinet. It's the same as explaining why the NSA doesn't need to be a cabinet member.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The President as referenced

Tonight, I propose a permanent Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security to unite essential agencies that must work more closely together: Among them, the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, the Customs Service, Immigration officials, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Employees of this new agency will come to work every morning knowing their most important job is to protect their fellow citizens. The Department of Homeland Security will be charged with --

The Department of Homeland Security will be charged with four primary tasks. This new agency will control our borders and prevent terrorists and explosives from entering our country. It will work with state and local authorities to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies. It will bring together our best scientists to develop technologies that detect biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and to discover the drugs and treatments to best protect our citizens. And this new department will review intelligence and law enforcement information from all agencies of government, and produce a single daily picture of threats against our homeland. Analysts will be responsible for imagining the worst, and planning to counter it.

The reason to create this department is not to create the size of government, but to increase its focus and effectiveness. The staff of this new department will be largely drawn from the agencies we are combining. By ending duplication and overlap, we will spend less on overhead, and more on protecting America. This reorganization will give the good people of our government their best opportunity to succeed by organizing our resources in a way that is thorough and unified.

What I am proposing tonight is the most extensive reorganization of the federal government since the 1940s. During his presidency, Harry Truman recognized that our nation's fragmented defenses had to be reorganized to win the Cold War. He proposed uniting our military forces under a single Department of Defense, and creating the National Security Council to bring together defense, intelligence, and diplomacy. Truman's reforms are still helping us to fight terror abroad, and now we need similar dramatic reforms to secure our people at home.

Later, after weighing their options, the administration decided to move ahead with the largest US government reorganization since the DoD was created. This reorganization obvously changes the needs of the President's cabinet. A completely different situation from the first reference and to compare the two is absurd or shows an ignorance of the way our government operates (or in the case of your website, e, both).

**Pokerface** · 10-24-2004, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

OK, then post one of the points from that page that you think is valid and the good people of TG can decide if it's a valid point or pure garbage...

I'll take you up on that.
--------
30. Winning The War On Terror

Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

…Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

…Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]
---------
To go one better, the middle one expands thusly (though I suggest you read the whole thing, of course):

Quote:

Lauer: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?

President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.

Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?

President Bush: I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way.

Someone please explain to me how that's a win.

**CingularDuality** · 10-24-2004, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Someone please explain to me how that's a win.

Well, he's made two seemingly contradictory statements. Taken literally and without context, it's undoubtedly a flip flop.

His second quote there is what the DNC jumped all over. And he's right. It's impossible to completely eliminate terror from this globe. Man's free will ensures that.

Our war on terror is trying to destroy the organizations and individuals that are dedicating themselves to our and our allies' destruction. This is something that can be accomplished. Just imagine a free Iraq that no longer accepts terror as a viable means of political action. Look at Afghanistan and how quickly the people embraced freedom. Yes, this is indeed a war that we can win...

**=DdogG=** · 10-25-2004, 06:39 AM

..........but keping ACTS of terror from happening is impossible..... while Bush never says either explicitly, common sense tells us that going by his addresses from all 4 years, the "war on Terror" is targeting those countries and organizations that promote and harbor terrorists. this can be done. So while "the War on Terror" can be translated either way, I believe Bush for the most part thinks this is about those countries and organizations. not so much those individuals. I think hit 8-30 statement was put in a micro-managed box that he knew was impossible to beat. I dunno though... I just get the sense from the man that "the War on Terror" is one thing ( fixing the global problems) in which he is always possitive and and the other ( micro-managing everything to make sure nothing every happens) in which he is realistic in saying that it can never be beaten.... only controlled. the first his statememts are positive, the second usually seem more like the "1984, ongoing war against the unseen, unnamed enemy" jmho though.

**CingularDuality** · 10-28-2004, 08:45 AM

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/09172004.shtml

http://www.nbc4i.com/politics/3863393/detail.html

This is the funniest thing I've seen this campaign season! He's got a loudspeaker that says: "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty!" "I'm John Kerry. Vote for me on Wednesday November 3rd." "I'm John Kerry. If you're on your way to the polls, please stop and have a cookie first. I've set them up right around the corner." "I'm John Kerry. Due to high voter turnout, Republicans will be voting on Tuesday and Democrats will be voting on Wednesday."

Notice the "flip flops" that he's wearing... In his swift boat...

**leejo** · 10-29-2004, 05:47 PM

Nice video that has a timeline of Kerry's evolving position on Iraq.
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/101104v1-1.wmv

10-25-2004, 06:39 AM	#68 (permalink)
=DdogG= Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ennis, TX Age: 31 Posts: 1,607	Re: Senator Kerry in '04! ..........but keping ACTS of terror from happening is impossible..... while Bush never says either explicitly, common sense tells us that going by his addresses from all 4 years, the "war on Terror" is targeting those countries and organizations that promote and harbor terrorists. this can be done. So while "the War on Terror" can be translated either way, I believe Bush for the most part thinks this is about those countries and organizations. not so much those individuals. I think hit 8-30 statement was put in a micro-managed box that he knew was impossible to beat. I dunno though... I just get the sense from the man that "the War on Terror" is one thing ( fixing the global problems) in which he is always possitive and and the other ( micro-managing everything to make sure nothing every happens) in which he is realistic in saying that it can never be beaten.... only controlled. the first his statememts are positive, the second usually seem more like the "1984, ongoing war against the unseen, unnamed enemy" jmho though. __________________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. -Harlan Ellison If all else fails: "rm -rf /"

10-28-2004, 08:45 AM	#69 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 16,637	Project: Long Face http://www.glennbeck.com/news/09172004.shtml http://www.nbc4i.com/politics/3863393/detail.html This is the funniest thing I've seen this campaign season! He's got a loudspeaker that says: "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty!" "I'm John Kerry. Vote for me on Wednesday November 3rd." "I'm John Kerry. If you're on your way to the polls, please stop and have a cookie first. I've set them up right around the corner." "I'm John Kerry. Due to high voter turnout, Republicans will be voting on Tuesday and Democrats will be voting on Wednesday." Notice the "flip flops" that he's wearing... In his swift boat... __________________ Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

10-29-2004, 05:47 PM	#70 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,523	Re: Project: Long Face Nice video that has a timeline of Kerry's evolving position on Iraq. http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/101104v1-1.wmv

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links