I learned Kerry stands firmly for...

[DrewKaree]

peale, drew. you guys all look alike to me...

Is that kinda like us silly Americans...New Zealanders, Australians, Brits...you all sound alike to  us  

[Harry Potter]

peale, drew. you guys all look alike to me...

Is that kinda like us silly Americans...New Zealanders, Australians, Brits...you all sound alike to  us  

I don't sound like Steve Irwin. Crikey!  

[fredster]

Prediction folks -

Bush 55% - Kerry 42% - everybody and everything else 3%

MrC - I didn't say that I believed those boat stories anyway. The point I was making is that both sides are clouding the issue with 1/2 truths and innuendo to the point nobody can believe any of it.

I really don't care about Kerry 30 years ago.  Same for Bush.  I'm not the same man I was 20 years ago.  It's now that's important.

BTW, I worked for Dick Chaney 3 times (very very indirectly).  Twice in the Army and Army reserve, and once for Roots Dresser, a subsidiary of Halliburton.

I heard him speak at Roots.  He always impressed me as a very successful and influential man that knew the right thing to do in a tough situation.

The thing that bothers me most is how they are draggin Halliburton's reputation in the mud while trying to hurt the president and vice president.  Halliburton is no more a war machine than GM or Allison who make most of the main components for the jets and tanks and trucks.

[fredster]

More on the Kerry Flap - to me it's as real as the Bush flap.  That is, they are both brought together with the same Idea in mind.  Slam the other guy with alligations.  As long as people will listen, they will believe it if it's true or not:

This one says kerry lied, and still gives credit to the swift boat crew MrC says are "discredited"

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc91.htm

[shmokes]

Fred,

The Drudge Report is a tabloid.  Read it for entertainment, but don't start quoting it until the real news outlets have verified the claims.  The reason Drudge breaks stories so often is he will print ANYTHING that reflects poorly on Democrats, with apparent disregard for the credibility of the source.  More often then not, if he broke it, it's a load of crap.

If you want to debate with the grown-ups, you have to use grown-up sources for your arguments.

[Valence]

Straight off the fox press.

Pertaining to Elliot George

"he says he sided with Kerry's critics because he can't believe they would all lie in concert, adding that he, "absolutely does not know first hand" what happened."

100 million ditto heads follow partyline with the reason we attacked iraq, even though it changed, and he can't believe that they can find 250 people to lie? Not a very bright guy.

Fox

[fredster]

Shmokes, Thanks for your unsolicited personal advice. I'll have to remember that.

But to clarify that - YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT.  

I know what the Drudge Report is.  It's funny sometimes too.  Drudge is the one who broke the Monica Story way back when, isn't he? YEs, he was.

Besides, most of the stuff quoted here isn't from a real news outlet.  That was my point man.  Most of the stuff is from left and right sides of the fence.


Back to the two sides.
How about something more mainstream: What about Novak?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20040809.shtml

I agree with Bush on the war.  I didn't consider myself to be a "ditto" head. It made sense at the time, and still makes sense.

[shmokes]

Exactly which of the various rational he has given us do you agree with?  Or do you just agree....?

And my point about the drudge report is that you make something about Drudge giving a group credit that was alledged to be discredited.  Tabloids, on a regular basis, give credit to the allegations that Elvis lives.

And in my own defense, I haven't linked to anything other than credible news sources who at least attempt to keep bias out of their journalism.

And, hey, regarding the advise...it's totally my pleasure, but it's gracious of you to thank me.  

[Harry Potter]

HEY! TOPIC! get back up here you BASTAR*D!  

[DrewKaree]

Straight off the fox press.

Pertaining to Elliot George

"he says he sided with Kerry's critics because he can't believe they would all lie in concert, adding that he, "absolutely does not know first hand" what happened."

100 million ditto heads follow partyline with the reason we attacked iraq, even though it changed, and he can't believe that they can find 250 people to lie? Not a very bright guy.

Fox

Valence, enlighten the reading audience here and tell about what the partyline is that the "ditto heads" are following, and what it's changed from.

That's two separate things.  

1.  What the "original" party line was.

2.  What the "new" party line is.

It'd enlighten us all to see what you think it is, and also give someone a chance to refute what your charge is, baseless or not.  I don't profess to speak for you or the mind-numbed liberal minions out there, nor do I believe they all march in lock-step to Kerry's tune, and I don't make charges about what your party line is unless I point to something that might back up my stance.  Flesh out your arguments with a little substance.  Mr C, help him out.  

[shmokes]

That's easy.  The party line is, "Stand behind the president, regardless..."

He means that even though it should be painfully obvious that we should not have gone into Iraq, people wear their party-line blinders and refuse to see what's right in front of them.  He means that in a country this divided and partisan it's silly to suggest that it would be difficult to find a group of people like this to lie.  

Think about it....how would there be 250 people from other boats that would know one way or the other whether John Kerry's wound was legit?  These are people who were in swift boats and who support Bush, and so they join the cause.  

For that matter, you think an Army doctor in Vietnam is honestly going to remember someone coming in with a "minor wound" 30 years ago, off the top of his head, without looking at the medical records (which of course contradict what he is saying)?  Ya know...it's not that hard to get a purple heart when you're in a war like vietnam, as long as you manage to come back alive.  The guy was a swift boat captain.  All you have to do to get a purple heart is get injured in battle.  Even if it was Kerry's own mortor bouncing off a rock that got him in the arm (which there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened), what do you suppose he was shooting at?

[DrewKaree]

We're talking two completely different things here, AND you didn't answer the original question asked.  His original post states (two separate points underlined)

100 million ditto heads follow partyline with the reason we attacked iraq, even though it changed, and he can't believe that they can find 250 people to lie?

Also, since we got got a thread closed down, it would behoove those of us wanting to talk about this to calm down and re-read what we are saying to see if it is indeed civil, and change it if it is NOT (not taking a shot at you, shmokes, just a general "knock it off" to everyone, after all, if I don't have these threads, how will my post count EVER get higher than yours? )

That's easy.  The party line is, "Stand behind the president, regardless..."

that's overly simplistic and not fleshed out.  Which is that the answer to, 1 or 2?  If it's 2, then it must have changed from "NOT standing behind the president, regardless".  Also, I'm asking...*rephrases*...from what did the "ditto-plan" change from?  

It's one thing to throw out baseless assessments of a political group, it's another to say them, show how you formulated that opinion, and then defend your claim.  The former is how debate gets inflamed and doesn't serve either party.  I'm just asking Valence to flesh out his claim.

<sub>He means that even though it should be painfully obvious that we should not have gone into Iraq, people wear their party-line blinders and refuse to see what's right in front of them.  He means that in a country this divided and partisan it's silly to suggest that it would be difficult to find a group of people like this to lie.  

Think about it....how would there be 250 people from other boats that would know one way or the other whether John Kerry's wound was legit?  These are people who were in swift boats and who support Bush, and so they join the cause.  

For that matter, you think an Army doctor in Vietnam is honestly going to remember someone coming in with a "minor wound" 30 years ago, off the top of his head, without looking at the medical records (which of course contradict what he is saying)?  Ya know...it's not that hard to get a purple heart when you're in a war like vietnam, as long as you manage to come back alive.  The guy was a swift boat captain.  All you have to do to get a purple heart is get injured in battle.  Even if it was Kerry's own mortor bouncing off a rock that got him in the arm (which there is no evidence to suggest this is what happened), what do you suppose he was shooting at?</sub>

this is where we're talking two different things.  I'm not asking about this, or referring to this...yet...I'm just asking about what the party line is, and what it was.

Oh, and btw, thanks for clearing that up shmokes Valence   it really helped us find out what ya thought  

[shmokes]

I don't think you're reading his post correctly Drew.  He didn't say the party line has changed.  He said that the stated reason we went into Iraq has changed.  Hence, people "stand[ing] behind the president [on the reason we went into Iraq], regardless [of the fact that that it changed]."

I honestly wasn't trying to be coy.  I think you simply misread his statement.  He was merely saying that when there are 100 million ditto heads [sic] that will follow the party line no matter how absurd it is under the circumstances to follow, it should not be difficult to come up with 250 people who would be willing to lie.

I don't mean to put words into Valence's mouth.  But I think I'm doing a pretty fair job explaining to you what he meant and I'd hate for the thread to stagnate just because Valence is in the Bahamas for the next two weeks or something.  I'm sure he'll set me straight if I'm reading him wrong.

[APFelon]

Thanks for killing the thread that we were having a "civil" debate on, Schmokes. I'm sure your response was wise and informative.

APf

[shmokes]

Unless it was killed belatedly for one of my posts, I don't think it was I who got the thread killed.  That is to say, I don't think it was any of my posts that were the straw that broke the camel's back -- not that I didn't contribute to any of the negative tone.  

Try to play nice this time...we don't want this one to have the same fate.

p.s.  That's an astute assumption and an excellent gamble for you to make.  All my responses were wise and informative.  It's a sad situation indeed that future visitors to this site will be forever deprived of all the wisdom I contributed to that thread.  

[saint]

Before anyone goes pointing fingers, there was no one person who got that thread killed.

--- saint

[DrewKaree]

It's a sad situation indeed that future visitors to this site will be forever deprived of all the wisdom I contributed to that thread.  

If you were sitting next to me, I'd slug you in the shoulder...I almost spewed soda outta my nose when I read that!  

As for Valence, I'm gonna wait for him to say, but to say the least, his posts are hard for me to follow.  Yours I have no problem following.  Just look for reason, and you'll be 100 yards away from there    

[monkeybomb]