PDA

View Full Version : Hiding Behind the Skirts of the Very People He Betrays


Hel'n
10-16-2004, 10:58 PM
Hiding Behind the Skirts of the Very People He Betrays, Insulting the Intelligence of America

By Anthony Wade

We live in dangerous times. There is a war being conducted on multiple fronts. Our children are dying every day in the haze of desert sands. There are deficits in excess of 400 billion dollars which threaten our currency. There are civil liberty abuses occurring daily because people have the temerity to politely dissent to the way this country is being run. Fifty million people have no healthcare. We have three straight years of increases in the number of families living in poverty. The specter of a military draft hangs over the lives of our children. Our environment is in rapid deterioration. There are reports of coordinated, widespread voter fraud and disenfranchisement of the poor in this country. In the midst of all of the salient issues of our lives and in the heat of the most important election season in our lifetimes, we see the media focusing on what? Mary Cheney.

That’s right, Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of vice president Dick Cheney. You see in the middle of the third presidential debate where George Bush was once again exposed as a faux president, John Kerry mentioned Cheney’s gay daughter. Now, if the exchange was:

Moderator: Mr. Kerry, we would like your views on the increasing violence in Iraq .

Kerry: Well, I would like to point out that Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian.

I would understand some being upset, or even as confused as most of us were when Bush started talking about No Child Left Behind when asked about the minimum wage. But that is not what went down. The moderator asked Bush if he thought homosexuality was a “choice”. Bush, realizing he could not answer honestly, passed on it by answering, “I don’t know”, like he was on Jeopardy. Kerry responded by saying that if you asked Mary Cheney, an open lesbian, she would not say that it was a choice. And in an hour and a half debate filled with so many important issues, the focus from the corporate media has been this one, innocuous comment.

What you have to ask yourself is if you really care that Mary Cheney is gay and her father does not support her with policy. You have to ask yourself if you care that John Kerry mentioned her name, for a period of two seconds, in an hour and a half debate. Here is a simple chart to help us stay focused down the stretch and highlight the absolute transparency of this:

What Should We Care About Down The Stretch?

Choice A Choice B

Mary Cheney Our children dying in the desert
Mary Cheney Possible raise in the minimum wage
Mary Cheney Skyrocketing healthcare costs
Mary Cheney 413 billion dollar deficit
Mary Cheney Loss of over 1.6 million private sector jobs
Mary Cheney Loss of over 800,000 jobs overall
Mary Cheney Voter fraud
Mary Cheney Civil liberties being destroyed
Mary Cheney The environment
Mary Cheney Planned Bush wars in Iran and Syria
Mary Cheney The draft
Mary Cheney 148 Billion dollars to the top 1% this year under the Bush tax cut
Mary Cheney McJobs replacing skilled jobs
Mary Cheney Outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing
Mary Cheney Halliburton
Mary Cheney Seniors buying medication from Canada

Now, watching corporate media one must conclude that they believe the first column is the most important issue for you down the stretch as you pick the president. If you hear the republican spin-meisters tell it, you need to stay focused on column A. The substance that is contained in column B, is why they want you focusing on column A. Every day you spend talking about Mary Cheney, an issue from column B is ignored. Every day the media focuses on Mary Cheney, is another day Bush breathes easier because he does not have to answer a question about column B. Sound cynical? Let’s take a look at the shameless media coverage so far.

For the first hour and a half following the debate, Mary Cheney was all MSNBC could talk about. The outrage was nothing more than a cheap and tawdry political stunt coming from staunch republicans such as Ben Ginsberg, Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan. The hypocrisy of the artificial indignation from the very people who do not support gay rights was disgusting and translucent. It did not end there though.

Thursday night on Hardball, Chris Matthews interviewed vice presidential candidate John Edwards. Within the first segment, Matthews grilled Edwards about the Cheney comment. Not about the economy. Nothing about voter fraud. Nothing about healthcare or the Iraq War. Mary Cheney. Are you kidding me? Thankfully Matthews eventually moved on. Once again though, it did not end there.

Friday night on Hardball, Matthews opened his show with this ridiculous non-issue again. He even replayed the Edwards interview from the night before, well, only the portion dealing with Mary Cheney. Yesterday, the story of rampant voter fraud was exposed but the lead story was Mary Cheney. As I have previously mentioned this is called framing the news. It is a deliberate attempt to distract you from the real issues. Later on Hardball, nearly every guest was asked to weigh in on the Mary Cheney situation.

On Fox News, Mary Cheney took precedence over all other news stories. Even later, CNN was playing parts of an interview with Kerry today responding to the Mary Cheney incident. I was expecting to see large story headers about “MaryCheneyGate”. This is what is passed off as news today. It should be insulting to your intelligence.

The president does not want you talking about the economy. He does not want you discussing healthcare. He certainly does not want you debating why his GOP has launched a campaign to disenfranchise poor voters across this country. No, he wants you talking about Mary Cheney, the lesbian. Every day that the pundits wax prophetically about the Mary Cheney comment, is another day Bush does not have to answer for his horrific record. It really is that simple. The worst part is that they all do not think you are smart enough to see through it. They are insulting your intelligence with impunity. Compounding the insult however is that the very people, who are pimping the condemnation of John Kerry, are people who do not support gay rights anyway. So, they are upset that Kerry brought up the gay daughter, who they would just as soon deny any rights to anyway. The height of insincerity.

Are you worried about the war in Iraq and the designs Bush has on Iran and Syria ? Don’t worry; we can talk about the vice president’s gay daughter. Are you concerned about the impending draft? Don’t worry; we will feed you lead stories about the nerve John Kerry had to mention Cheney’s gay daughter, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. Are you disturbed about the revelation that Bush’s party has systematically engaged in a nation-wide effort to defraud this election? Let’s worry about that after we discuss Mary Cheney. You have got to be kidding me.

This administration thinks you are not smart enough to understand what is really going on. Mary Cheney is gay, who cares. The vice president supports policy that is anti-gay, who cares. No one really cares, especially not the self-serving outraged republican operatives who hope that this story continues to lead all media until everyone wakes up in a second Bush term.

America , you cannot let this happen. Weapons of mass distraction are designed to throw your attention from the real issues they hope to avoid until Election Day. In 2000 the media jumped all over Al Gore because he SIGHED, every time Bush LIED during the first debate. All the lead stories were about Gore sighing and how petulant he appeared compared to how folksy Bush was. Gore tried to change his style in the second debate by softening his demeanor, a tact Bush took in all three debates this year, and the media strung him up. All the lead stories were about how Gore had to “reinvent” himself. No coverage of how Bush was wildly misrepresenting himself on real topical issues such as a patient’s bill of rights. No, it was Gore the Sigher and then Gore the Prevaricator. Al Gore never recovered and Karl Rove must have been laughing his *** off.

They are doing it again. Mary Cheney has NO BUSINESS being the lead story on ANY news show with 20 days left in an election season. Even if the stories were fair and addressed the hypocrisy shown by Dick Cheney in having an openly gay daughter and being anti-gay, I still do not think they rise to the level of import that we should be even vaguely considering this as a credible piece of news. This election season is the most important of our lifetimes. It should not be handled in such a disrespectful manner by the mainstream media that they think we would rather hear about a woman who has nothing to do with the national discourse instead of why our children are dying every day. It is insulting. No offense to Mary Cheney personally.

George Bush and his operatives are hiding behind the skirts of the very people they do not support. The false indignation is transparent coming from people who have traditionally been homophobic to begin with. They desperately want you focusing on column A, so the real issues are avoided. We live in dangerous times and our president, his party, and the corporate controlled media want you debating about the lesbian daughter of the vice president, whom he does not support, instead of focusing on the issues that truly matter to us all. Dick Cheney said the other day that he is an “angry father”. Too bad Dick. Why don’t you stop hiding behind her and answer the questions the American people need to hear before they vote you and your boss out of office.

Anthony Wade is co-administrator of www.ibtp.org, a website devoted to educating the populace to the ongoing lies of President George W. Bush and seeking his removal from office. He is a 37-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.

http://www.opednews.com/wade_101604_mary_cheney.htm

KCWolfman
10-16-2004, 11:06 PM
Mary Cheney has NO BUSINESS being the lead story on ANY news show with 20 days left

I agree. Who was the dumbass that brought her name up?

stevieray
10-16-2004, 11:14 PM
I agree. Who was the dumbass that brought her name up?

the dems wives already get too much air time.

Mr. Kotter
10-16-2004, 11:23 PM
I agree. Who was the dumbass that brought her name up?

No SH*t....and they blame the Reps for doin' it; Kerry friggin' brought it up!!!

Must have took some real DUMBAZZ to do that, eh? :rolleyes:

Phobia
10-16-2004, 11:26 PM
I'm on record as stating, "I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT". Find me some other controversy about which to get huffy.

I just don't care about this one.

Is Mary the one with the nipples at some goofy movie awards show in france?

KCWolfman
10-16-2004, 11:29 PM
I'm on record as stating, "I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT". Find me some other controversy about which to get huffy.

I just don't care about this one.

Is Mary the one with the nipples at some goofy movie awards show in france?
No, that whore is the product of the Kerry household.

Damn, you are much better at being an indirect azzhole than I could ever hope to be.

Mr. Kotter
10-16-2004, 11:34 PM
I'm on record as stating, "I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT". Find me some other controversy about which to get huffy.

I just don't care about this one.

Is Mary the one with the nipples at some goofy movie awards show in france?

Nah, that's one of the sKerry chicks. ROFL

KCWolfman
10-16-2004, 11:47 PM
No, that whore is the product of the Kerry household.

Damn, you are much better at being an indirect azzhole than I could ever hope to be.
Oh, let me postface (is that the opposite of preface?) my comment by stating I support the legalization of prostitution; therefore, calling Kerry's daughter a whore is not meant derogatory in any way.

Phobia
10-16-2004, 11:54 PM
I was actually hoping the Kerry daughter was the lesbian because she appeared to be very attainable. I was gonna take her home to her girlfriend. Damn, another dream dashed.

Will it ever end?

KCWolfman
10-16-2004, 11:58 PM
I was actually hoping the Kerry daughter was the lesbian because she appeared to be very attainable. I was gonna take her home to her girlfriend. Damn, another dream dashed.

Will it ever end?
The only reason I can think of is that you have about twice the normal forehead to money shot on.

Phobia
10-17-2004, 12:12 AM
The only reason I can think of is that you have about twice the normal forehead to money shot on.

Forehead? Hell, I never saw a forehead. In fact, I saw a giant pair of nipples and that's it. Does anybody have the picture in question handy?

penchief
10-17-2004, 12:15 AM
I see it. A lot of people see it. But conservatives have been brainwashed since Nixon's whining about how the liberal media were out to get him when it was his own dishonesty and lust for power the undid his presidency. Ever since Nixon the right-wing has been whining about the liberal media because it has been a very successful ploy that encourages the evasion of accountability.

This is apparent now more than ever. While the Dan Rathers of the world may be liberal at heart, it is not the Dan Rathers of the world that decide programming or the slant that corporate media outlets espouse. It is ownership. Rupert Murdoch and the Sinclair Group are two good examples of this.

Most conservatives would claim that NBC is liberal which is total bullshit. NBC is owned by GE. GE is not only a huge corporation that benefits from the policies of this administration it is also the fifth largest defense contractor in the world. The war in Iraq is good for business. Not only the business of defense but the business of news & entertainment.

I have been in total awe that all of the major news outlets are focusing on the Cheney flap when Bush sat right there in front of the entire nation and stated that he never said he "wasn't concerned about Osama bin Laden." If that had been Kerry that would have been all she wrote. But you know what? It was the corporately owned president that said that and there hasn't been one peep. Go figure.

When Clinton's people said they warned the Bush/Cheney bunch about how much of a threat of Al Qaida was it's hard not to believe that the Bush White House didn't take the threat seriously when you listen to the president's own words after the events of 9/11.

How anyone in their right minds could continue to defend this president and his group of liars and ideologues is completely beyond me.

Phobia
10-17-2004, 12:19 AM
Yeah - penchief. That's right. I was brainwashed by Nixon... when I was like, 3. Congratulations for the most uninformed post of the night.

penchief
10-17-2004, 12:27 AM
Yeah - penchief. That's right. I was brainwashed by Nixon... when I was like, 3. Congratulations for the most uninformed post of the night.

I didn't say Nixon brainwashed you, uninformed one. I said ever since Nixon the right has been brainwashing their followers to believe something that isn't true. It's been a ploy since Nixon. He was the first to really point the finger at the media as the source of his own undoing.

What I said was that since Nixon, conservatives have been using it to divert attention away from their own shortcomings. Do I believe Nixon brainwashed you? No. Do I believe that conservatives continue to use the myth of the "liberal" media as a ploy to gain politial advantage? Absolutely.

I love the way some of you argue by being conveniently selective in how you interpret another person's argument. But when you follow the lead of your heroes in the GOP I can understand how you can turn someone else's argument into something completely different and then try to turn it back on them in a negative way, ala the Cheney flap.

Phobia
10-17-2004, 12:39 AM
I didn't say Nixon brainwashed you, uninformed one. I said ever since Nixon the right has been brainwashing their followers to believe something that isn't true. It's been a ploy since Nixon. He was the first to really point the finger at the media as the source of his own undoing.

What I said was that since Nixon, conservatives have been using it to divert attention away from their own shortcomings. Do I believe Nixon brainwashed you? No. Do I believe that conservatives continue to use the myth of the "liberal" media as a ploy to gain politial advantage? Absolutely.

I love the way some of you argue by being conveniently selective in how you interpret another person's argument. But when you follow the lead of your heroes in the GOP I can understand how you can turn someone else's argument into something completely different and then try to turn it back on them in a negative way, ala the Cheney flap.

I don't have a problem with your sexual preference, penchief. Just keep your semen to yourself, please. Puffy Pillowbiter.

BroWhippendiddle
10-17-2004, 07:16 AM
I didn't say Nixon brainwashed you, uninformed one. I said ever since Nixon the right has been brainwashing their followers to believe something that isn't true. It's been a ploy since Nixon. He was the first to really point the finger at the media as the source of his own undoing.

What I said was that since Nixon, conservatives have been using it to divert attention away from their own shortcomings. Do I believe Nixon brainwashed you? No. Do I believe that conservatives continue to use the myth of the "liberal" media as a ploy to gain politial advantage? Absolutely.

I love the way some of you argue by being conveniently selective in how you interpret another person's argument. But when you follow the lead of your heroes in the GOP I can understand how you can turn someone else's argument into something completely different and then try to turn it back on them in a negative way, ala the Cheney flap.

Have you watched the media lately? They have earned the title of being liberally biased. Last night I watched CNN for 2 hours. During that two hours they covered the election in a fair and balanced way. 35 minutes worth of Kerry and 7 minutes of the President. 35-7, yep that is fair and balanced. The bigger part of this case for consideration is that they were interviewing Kerry for most of the 35 minutes and were showing file footage of the President. Media not liberal and biased? Who would ever come to that conclusion?

memyselfI
10-17-2004, 07:31 AM
Hiding Behind the Skirts of the Very People He Betrays, Insulting the Intelligence of America


http://www.opednews.com/wade_101604_mary_cheney.htm

More people are coming around to this POV seeing that it was a political tooling by BOTH sides and that the Cheney's have overplayed their 'outrage' and look like opportunists. Can you say backlash???

Phobia
10-17-2004, 09:56 AM
I don't have a problem with your sexual preference, penchief. Just keep your semen to yourself, please. Puffy Pillowbiter.

Holy crap. I was pretty liquored up last night. My apologies to everybody who had to read this garbage.

penchief
10-17-2004, 10:07 AM
Holy crap. I was pretty liquored up last night. My apologies to everybody who had to read this garbage.

Does that include me? If so, I accept your apology. If not, oh well.

I don't believe I have said anything on this issue that would give anyone an indication that I might be gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that ;).

Still, why do so many conservatives on this board resort to that tactic so often? Sometimes, like this time, it comes completely out of left field.

Phobia
10-17-2004, 10:17 AM
Does that include me? If so, I accept your apology. If not, oh well.

I don't believe I have said anything on this issue that would give anyone an indication that I might be gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that ;).

Still, why do so many conservatives on this board resort to that tactic so often? Sometimes, like this time, it comes completely out of left field.
Of course it includes you. I think the reason I posted that silliness was because of this statement in your post; "I can understand how you can turn someone else's argument into something completely different and then try to turn it back on them in a negative way" Not exactly from left field, huh?

Yeah, I was toasted, but at least my humor is still dry.

Hel'n
10-17-2004, 11:01 AM
Does that include me? If so, I accept your apology. If not, oh well.

I don't believe I have said anything on this issue that would give anyone an indication that I might be gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that ;).

Still, why do so many conservatives on this board resort to that tactic so often? Sometimes, like this time, it comes completely out of left field.


Because if you disagree with Bush and the tactics of this administration you are disloyal or homosexual or both!

At least that's the tactic that always seems to result...

Me, I just dislike poor, rich "white" assholes who try to say they care about America when all they really care about is their wallets...

Phobia
10-17-2004, 11:03 AM
Because if you disagree with Bush and the tactics of this administration you are disloyal or homosexual or both!

Oh bullshit. Did you have your sense of humor surgically removed.

Brock
10-17-2004, 11:07 AM
Me, I just dislike poor, rich "white" assholes who try to say they care about America when all they really care about is their wallets...

The racism rules only apply when Phobia wants them to, like when they offend his buddies. So I'm guessing you'll continue to get away with it.

Hel'n
10-17-2004, 12:09 PM
The racism rules only apply when Phobia wants them to, like when they offend his buddies. So I'm guessing you'll continue to get away with it.

I'm simply being WHAT YOU SAY I am...

Or don't you understand sarcasm?

You must truly be a nitwit...

:p

Phobia
10-17-2004, 12:19 PM
The racism rules only apply when Phobia wants them to, like when they offend his buddies. So I'm guessing you'll continue to get away with it.

Oh - you mean like when I banned my friend, Rob earlier this week. The guy with whom I've shared many beers? Is that who you're talking about?

Additionally, I have a hard time understanding how a white person can be racist towards white people.

Brock
10-17-2004, 12:24 PM
Oh - you mean like when I banned my friend, Rob earlier this week. The guy with whom I've shared many beers? Is that who you're talking about?

Additionally, I have a hard time understanding how a white person can be racist towards white people.

It is a double standard, it is bullshit. But it's no surprise, you let people get away with calling others KKK members, but bitch when someone refers to someone else as a terrorist. You speak with forked tongue often.

Phobia
10-17-2004, 12:33 PM
I didn't bitch when anybody was referred to as a terrorist. I merely pointed out that they probably weren't a terrorist.

If you think that people should be punished for slinging "KKK" around, speak up. Start a poll or something. I'm not personally offended by much that happens on this BB, so I'm not going to make up rules that suit me. The few rules that we have on this BB are generally due to complaints. I've never seen a complaint for "KKK" being slung around.

As far as a double standard and forked tongue are concerned, I think you're wrong. In fact, I'm sure some people that I don't hold in high regard would even come to my defense on that. I'm far from perfect, but I try to be as fair as I possibly can - even if the dispute involves my friends.

Hel'n
10-17-2004, 12:42 PM
It is a double standard, it is bullshit. But it's no surprise, you let people get away with calling others KKK members, but bitch when someone refers to someone else as a terrorist. You speak with forked tongue often.

Are you offended that the term KKK is used? Or are you offended that it is used in a derogatory fashion? Are you a member of the KKK? Is that why you get upset when people make disparaging or sarcastic remarks about white people?

I am very curious?

Don't make people be what they aren't... That's what I'm trying to show you...

Hel'n
10-17-2004, 12:43 PM
Oh - you mean like when I banned my friend, Rob earlier this week. The guy with whom I've shared many beers? Is that who you're talking about?

Additionally, I have a hard time understanding how a white person can be racist towards white people.

Thank you. I know we disagree a lot, but I appreciate your efforts here.

Brock
10-17-2004, 12:45 PM
Are you offended that the term KKK is used? Or are you offended that it is used in a derogatory fashion? Are you a member of the KKK? Is that why you get upset when people make disparaging or sarcastic remarks about white people?

I am very curious?

Don't make people be what they aren't... That's what I'm trying to show you...

If it is okay to call out people because they are white, it should be okay to make fun of Taco for being Hispanic. For some reason (Phobia), it isn't.

Phobia
10-17-2004, 01:13 PM
I don't view it that way. Sorry. If a white person is cracking on another white person, how is that racism?

Phobia
10-17-2004, 01:17 PM
BTW, if you want to make a change in the rules, you know how to make that happen.

Mr. Kotter
10-17-2004, 03:14 PM
...As far as a double standard and forked tongue are concerned, I think you're wrong. In fact, I'm sure some people that I don't hold in high regard would even come to my defense on that. I'm far from perfect, but I try to be as fair as I possibly can - even if the dispute involves my friends.

I'd vouch for that; Phob employs no double standard....he's an obnoxious asshole to everyone. Just ask Pink.

FTR, so am I; although I guess that IS what got me banned.... :banghead:

I knew I was pushin' the line....

KCWolfman
10-17-2004, 03:32 PM
Does that include me? If so, I accept your apology. If not, oh well.

I don't believe I have said anything on this issue that would give anyone an indication that I might be gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that ;).

Still, why do so many conservatives on this board resort to that tactic so often? Sometimes, like this time, it comes completely out of left field.
Again with the high and mighty crap. It is not just the conservative side as you allude to. It is both sides.

Would you like quotes and links?

KCWolfman
10-17-2004, 03:32 PM
Me, I just dislike poor, rich "white" assholes who try to say they care about America when all they really care about is their wallets...

So you are okay with Hispanic and Black assholes, eh?

Cochise
10-17-2004, 03:46 PM
So you are okay with Hispanic and Black assholes, eh?

Boy, that is quite a setup right there, but I will let someone else come along and hit it over the fence.

Hel'n
10-17-2004, 04:13 PM
Boy, that is quite a setup right there, but I will let someone else come along and hit it over the fence.

He obviously didn't read the rest of the thread before he posted his short-sighted response...

KCWolfman
10-17-2004, 04:43 PM
He obviously didn't read the rest of the thread before he posted his short-sighted response...
Sure I did. The statement reveals quite about about your viewpoints of others.

Hel'n
10-17-2004, 05:44 PM
Sure I did. The statement reveals quite about about your viewpoints of others.


Always interesting to see you peek out from under your mommie's skirts and say something you think is pithy with that mouth of yours...

:rolleyes:

KCWolfman
10-17-2004, 05:56 PM
Always interesting to see you peek out from under your mommie's skirts and say something you think is pithy with that mouth of yours...

:rolleyes:
Mommie's skirts?

Do you know something we don't? Or is this one of those attacks you use when you have nothing relevant to add.

What does my mother have to do with this conversation?

stevieray
10-17-2004, 06:00 PM
Don't make people be what they aren't... That's what I'm trying to show you...

but of course this doesn't apply to you, as you are allowed to do it to KCW and others.

KCWolfman
10-17-2004, 06:01 PM
but of course this doesn't apply to you, as you are allowed to do it to KCW.
Thanks, Steve. I thought the hypocrisy was evident as well.

stevieray
10-17-2004, 06:04 PM
Thanks, Steve. I thought the hypocrisy was evident as well.

It's just deep rooted sadness, masked by anger.

Cochise
10-17-2004, 06:21 PM
It's just deep rooted sadness, masked by anger.

:clap:

KCWolfman
10-17-2004, 06:46 PM
It's just deep rooted sadness, masked by anger.
I can go with that.

Brock
10-17-2004, 06:54 PM
Always interesting to see you peek out from under your mommie's skirts and say something you think is pithy with that mouth of yours...

:rolleyes:

What an idiotic thing to say. You should stick to bad poetry and lame pseudo psychiatric self analysis, because you are completely out of touch with reality. Let me guess, you're unemployed too.

Cochise
10-17-2004, 07:01 PM
What an idiotic thing to say. You should stick to bad poetry and lame pseudo psychiatric self analysis, because you are completely out of touch with reality. Let me guess, you're unemployed too.

I think that if/when Bush wins we are going to need to have Hel'n committed.

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 12:18 AM
I think that if/when Bush wins we are going to need to have Hel'n committed.

I seriously doubt Bush is going to win...

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 12:23 AM
Mommie's skirts?

Do you know something we don't? Or is this one of those attacks you use when you have nothing relevant to add.

What does my mother have to do with this conversation?

You do the same thing... If I talk about WMD, then you say "What about oil-for-food?" and if we talk about Bush's incompetence you talk about "What about Kerry's remark abou Mary Cheney?"...

This is an attack upon your ability to answer direct questions. Questions I do answer. You always say, "Prove to me you're right." while you never provide any proof yourself...

One thing you can always say about me is that I am direct. And you are not.

I find your remarks disingenuous... and your attempts to put your religious beliefs into civil law very scary...

That's why I want Bush to lose... so people like you can live your own lives without legislating your religion into my life...

:rolleyes:

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 05:02 AM
You do the same thing... If I talk about WMD, then you say "What about oil-for-food?" and if we talk about Bush's incompetence you talk about "What about Kerry's remark abou Mary Cheney?"...

This is an attack upon your ability to answer direct questions. Questions I do answer. You always say, "Prove to me you're right." while you never provide any proof yourself...

One thing you can always say about me is that I am direct. And you are not.

I find your remarks disingenuous... and your attempts to put your religious beliefs into civil law very scary...

That's why I want Bush to lose... so people like you can live your own lives without legislating your religion into my life...

:rolleyes:

My religion? I thought you were "direct"? What religion have I supported legislating?

The very thread YOU created is regarding Kerry's comments, yet you want to go off on an indirect tangent while I stayed on topic. Your hypocrisy is blatant.

Then when blasted by several people for your hate filled stupid comment you come up with a weak excuse like above. I find you to be anything but direct. Your first statement was nothing but a hated filled non-topic, and your quote above it bigoted and without original thought.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 06:52 AM
I think Hel'n is officially the new jAZ. Reasonable poster formerly that has now gone off the deep end, and is flooding the DC forum with new threads.

And that dude in your avatar is scary looking.

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 08:30 AM
What an idiotic thing to say. You should stick to bad poetry and lame pseudo psychiatric self analysis, because you are completely out of touch with reality.


It has made so many references to "skirts" and "white assholes" I'm beginning to wonder. I don't give a $hit what race it is, constantly using the term "White Assholes" is RACIST by any stretch of the imagination.

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 08:36 AM
If I am an African American is it OK if I start throwing around the "N" word when refering to Blacks I don't like?

penchief
10-18-2004, 10:57 AM
I seriously doubt Bush is going to win...

I don't. I am very pessimistic about the analytical ability of the American people as a whole and I am very cynical of, not only the media's intent to focus on personal attacks instead of the issues that really matter, but also of the corporate influence that seems to hold sway over both politics and the media.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 11:04 AM
I don't. I am very pessimistic about the analytical ability of the American people as a whole and I am very cynical of, not only the media's intent to focus on personal attacks instead of the issues that really matter, but also of the corporate influence that seems to hold sway over both politics and the media.
If that truly is your viewpoint, how can you support a wealthy individual whose very being in politics is dependent upon corporation funding like Kerry?

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 11:06 AM
I don't. I am very pessimistic about the analytical ability of the American people as a whole and I am very cynical of, not only the media's intent to focus on personal attacks instead of the issues that really matter, but also of the corporate influence that seems to hold sway over both politics and the media.

Bush won't get 1/3 of the undecided vote. Most cannot conceive of another four years with this guy.

On top of that, moderate Republicans aren't saying what they are really going to do. They're keeping their mouths shut. They don't like Bush any more than I do. So they're left with two choices: staying home, or voting for Kerry.

I will guess that the moderates will split their actions: 50 percent will vote for Kerry, and 50 percent will stay home.

And that should be enough to swing the election.

Funny thing is, the pollsters aren't able to track those people well, because they don't know how to find them... These are people who will not answer their phones and allow their precious time home from work to talk to some pollster when they can be with their friends or families... or just relaxing...

No, I think this election is a real squeaker...

And Florida is already a problem. Can't we just NOT allow Florida to participate in the presidential vote?

WilliamTheIrish
10-18-2004, 11:16 AM
I don't. I am very pessimistic about the analytical ability of the American people as a whole and I am very cynical of, not only the media's intent to focus on personal attacks instead of the issues that really matter, but also of the corporate influence that seems to hold sway over both politics and the media.

Same here. When I see posts from D'nice that are followed by reach arounds in the form of hand clapping smilies from other posters, I know the analytical ability of the public is at low tide.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 11:20 AM
Same here. When I see posts from D'nice that are followed by reach arounds in the form of hand clapping smilies from other posters, I know the analytical ability of the public is at low tide.
Nice.

And repworthy

BIG_DADDY
10-18-2004, 11:25 AM
Hel'n,

Can you change that avatar, it's not halloween yet.

penchief
10-18-2004, 11:25 AM
If that truly is your viewpoint, how can you support a wealthy individual whose very being in politics is dependent upon corporation funding like Kerry?

Just because a man is wealthy doesn't mean he is going to screw the American worker in every imaginable way like President Bush has. Bush is a corporate whore to the extreme.

Bush has, in every instance, stood by the banking industry, insurnce industry, pharmaceutical industry, HMO's, the oil and energy industries, etc., etc. to the detriment of everyday Americans and their ability to improve their lives.

It's funny. So many conservatives would have you believe that Kerry is both a flip-flopper and a consistent liberal. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Is he no different than Bush or is he going to bankrupt (irony) the country because of his devout liberal beliefs?

Which is it? Remember you can't have it both ways.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 11:28 AM
Just because a man is wealthy doesn't mean he is going to screw the American worker in every imaginable way like President Bush has. Bush is a corporate whore to the extreme.

Bush has, in every instance, stood by the banking industry, insurnce industry, pharmaceutical industry, HMO's, the oil and energy industries, etc., etc. to the detriment of everyday Americans and their ability to improve their lives.

It's funny. So many conservatives would have you believe that Kerry is both a flip-flopper and a consistent liberal. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Is he no different than Bush or is he going to bankrupt (irony) the country because of his devout liberal beliefs?

Which is it? Remember you can't have it both ways.

You state "you can't have it both ways" in the same post that you defend Kerry as a non-corporate driven candidate who has ascended to his position directly due to corporations.

The irony is thick.

BIG_DADDY
10-18-2004, 11:28 AM
Just because a man is wealthy doesn't mean he is going to screw the American worker in every imaginable way like President Bush has. Bush is a corporate whore to the extreme.

Bush has, in every instance, stood by the banking industry, insurnce industry, pharmaceutical industry, HMO's, the oil and energy industries, etc., etc. to the detriment of everyday Americans and their ability to improve their lives.

It's funny. So many conservatives would have you believe that Kerry is both a flip-flopper and a consistent liberal. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Is he no different than Bush or is he going to bankrupt (irony) the country because of his devout liberal beliefs?

Which is it? Remember you can't have it both ways.

It's a shame the Demorats couldn't have given us a real candidate.

Donger
10-18-2004, 11:28 AM
Just because a man is wealthy doesn't mean he is going to screw the American worker in every imaginable way like President Bush has.

Wow.

Stop channeling the jAZ, penchief. It doesn't become you.

WilliamTheIrish
10-18-2004, 11:32 AM
Bush has, in every instance, stood by the banking industry, insurnce industry, pharmaceutical industry, HMO's, the oil and energy industries, etc., etc. to the detriment of everyday Americans and their ability to improve their lives.

In his defense, do not all of the entities you mentioned above produce something for people like you and me? You know... employment? Little stuff like that? Is that the detriment they provide folks like you and me? I don't think big business is an angelic entity, but it's hardly the coming of the anti christ that you constantly portray.

Is John Kerry not in bed with any corporations? Cause I could swear that he married a poor spinster that has about 11ty billion dollars in the condiment business.

At the very least, I don't think that Bush is in tight with the [shudder] trial lawyers.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 11:32 AM
Which is it? Remember you can't have it both ways.

Apparently no one briefed your candidate on that.

Tell me for example how he's not trying to have it both ways on the 50 cent gas tax hike? He supported the bill at the time, but it died before a vote. And now when asked about it he says he "never sponsored or voted for" a 50 cent gas tax hike. Technically correct, but also deliberately misleading.

You don't have to have an inconsistent voting record to be a flipflopper. When it comes down to a vote, he's dyed in the wool. When it comes down to just making statements that he can revise later, all bets are off.

Evidence for example how he's now against the 2003 gulf war he voted for and for the 1991 gulf war he voted against.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 11:33 AM
You state "you can't have it both ways" in the same post that you defend Kerry as a non-corporate driven candidate who has ascended to his position directly due to corporations.

The irony is thick.

Where would his primary campaign have gone without duhresa's millions?

Where did those millions come from?

penchief
10-18-2004, 11:34 AM
You state "you can't have it both ways" in the same post that you defend Kerry as a non-corporate driven candidate who has ascended to his position directly due to corporations.

The irony is thick.

No I didn't. This is what you guys always try to do. What I did was criticize Bush for being an extreme corporate whore. I never said that Kerry had no corporate influence.

Again, the black or white, good or evil mentality that seems to pervade conservative politics these days leaves no room for degrees. Just like Clinton's Lewinsky lie is the equivalent to Bush's WMD lie, there is no way that Kerry is any less of a corporate whore than Enron/Halliburton George. C'mon. You guys have better analytic skills than that.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 11:35 AM
Where would his primary campaign have gone without duhresa's millions?

Where did those millions come from?
Bingo! And that is just the wife. Mass has a fine history of corporations assisting their Senatorial leaders.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 11:36 AM
No I didn't. This is what you guys always try to do. What I did was criticize Bush for being an extreme corporate whore. I never said that Kerry had no corporate influence.

Again, the black or white, good or evil mentality that seems to pervade conservative politics these days leaves no room for degrees. Just like Clinton's Lewinsky lie is the equivalent to Bush's WMD lie, there is no way that Kerry is any less of a corporate whore than Enron/Halliburton George. C'mon. You guys have better analytic skills than that.
Yeah, that black and white stuff is BS.

Like blaming Enron solely on the Reps when the Democratic party received 35% of their political donations. Looks like you are guilty of your own decolorization.

penchief
10-18-2004, 11:39 AM
You state "you can't have it both ways" in the same post that you defend Kerry as a non-corporate driven candidate who has ascended to his position directly due to corporations.

The irony is thick.

Besides, the point is, if Kerry is just going to tow the corporate line then why is Bush running around the country telling the people that Kerry's "help the people" liberalism is a threat to prosperity? The truth is that Kerry's social policies would look a helluva lot more like Clinton's than they would Pfizer George's.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 11:40 AM
Is John Kerry not in bed with any corporations?

No, he's not beholden to corporate special interests at all.

Not to Time Warner, his 4th largest contributor through July.
Not to Citigroup, #5
Not to UBS Americas, #6
Not to Goldman Sachs, #7
Not to Viacom, #10
Not to Microsoft, #11
Not to Morgan Stanley #14
Not to JP Morgan Chase, #15

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 11:42 AM
Besides, the point is, if Kerry is just going to tow the corporate line then why is Bush running around the country telling the people that Kerry's "help the people" liberalism is a threat to prosperity? The truth is that Kerry's social policies would look a helluva lot more like Clinton's than they would Pfizer George's.
When did GWB use the words "help the people" liberalism? I have never heard him state thus.

Your extrapolations are driven by your partisanship.

penchief
10-18-2004, 11:46 AM
Yeah, that black and white stuff is BS.

Like blaming Enron solely on the Reps when the Democratic party received 35% of their political donations. Looks like you are guilty of your own decolorization.

See, I know throwing enron in there is like feeding you what you want because I've heard the old Clinton connection lines in defense of Bush. But let me ask you something. BankONe George has always pounced on any opportunity to bash Clinton or blame a problem on Clinton. During the height of the Enron scandal why didn't Exxon George make political hay out of that "Clinton" connection?

Maybe because bringing attention to a situation that reflected immensly more negatively on him than on anyone else was not bright? Why would he draw attention to his personal relationship with Ken Lay when Enron most likely, along with Halliburton, had enourmous sway in the development of our National Energy Policy? Why would he want anyone to delve into the Cheney Energy Task Force only to find out that they were in cohoots to undermine California with their artificial rolling blackouts or cast a light on their greed driven influence within the Bush/Cheney White House?

penchief
10-18-2004, 11:52 AM
See, I know throwing enron in there is like feeding you what you want because I've heard the old Clinton connection lines in defense of Bush. But let me ask you something. BankONe George has always pounced on any opportunity to bash Clinton or blame a problem on Clinton. During the height of the Enron scandal why didn't Exxon George make political hay out of that "Clinton" connection?

Maybe because bringing attention to a situation that reflected immensly more negatively on him than on anyone else was not bright? Why would he draw attention to his personal relationship with Ken Lay when Enron most likely, along with Halliburton, had enourmous sway in the development of our National Energy Policy? Why would he want anyone to delve into the Cheney Energy Task Force only to find out that they were in cohoots to undermine California with their artificial rolling blackouts or cast a light on their greed driven influence within the Bush/Cheney White House?

Or for that matter, why on earth would Halliburton Dick want to open a can of worms that might cast a light on the fact that Halliburton and the White House may have had preliminary discussions concerning post-war Iraq while discussing the "peoples business" during the Energy Task Force meetings?

It still bugs me how conservatives can defend the secrecy practiced by this administration related to the "peoples business."

I know you have better analytic skills than that. It's a matter of being objective.

Brock
10-18-2004, 11:55 AM
No, he's not beholden to corporate special interests at all.

Not to Time Warner, his 4th largest contributor through July.
Not to Citigroup, #5
Not to UBS Americas, #6
Not to Goldman Sachs, #7
Not to Viacom, #10
Not to Microsoft, #11
Not to Morgan Stanley #14
Not to JP Morgan Chase, #15

Hypocrite penchief doesn't want to hear about it.

Donger
10-18-2004, 11:55 AM
Or for that matter, why on earth would Halliburton Dick want to open a can of worms that might cast a light on the fact that Halliburton and the White House may have had preliminary discussions concerning post-war Iraq while discussing the "peoples business" during the Energy Task Force meetings?

It still bugs me how conservatives can defend the secrecy practiced by this administration related to the "peoples business."

I know you have better analytic skills than that. It's a matter of being objective.

I ask the following in all seriousness: Has someone hijacked your account?

go bowe
10-18-2004, 11:55 AM
I didn't bitch when anybody was referred to as a terrorist. I merely pointed out that they probably weren't a terrorist.

If you think that people should be punished for slinging "KKK" around, speak up. Start a poll or something. I'm not personally offended by much that happens on this BB, so I'm not going to make up rules that suit me. The few rules that we have on this BB are generally due to complaints. I've never seen a complaint for "KKK" being slung around.

As far as a double standard and forked tongue are concerned, I think you're wrong. In fact, I'm sure some people that I don't hold in high regard would even come to my defense on that. I'm far from perfect, but I try to be as fair as I possibly can - even if the dispute involves my friends.fwiw, i think you do a great job around here...

this is by and large a community bb and in most instances, y0u do what the community wants...

some people are too busy with their own agenda to notice, apparently...

btw, i don't see much difference between the use of kkk and the use of terrorist symphatizer... both are pretty much meaningless insults intended to inflame, and nothing more... we have lots of insults around here, some good natured and some... well, not...

WilliamTheIrish
10-18-2004, 11:55 AM
BankOne George?

I have to admit I like that...

penchief
10-18-2004, 11:57 AM
When did GWB use the words "help the people" liberalism? I have never heard him state thus.

Your extrapolations are driven by your partisanship.

That was meant as sarcasm. Instead of "liberal" policy that is fair-minded and truly compassionate, Bush wants to "unleash the armies of compassion."

My first use of " "" ", I was being sarcastic. In the latter use I am directly quoting George Bush (unleashing the armies of compassion).

Again, I love how you continue to divert attention away from the substance of my argument.

penchief
10-18-2004, 12:00 PM
I ask the following in all seriousness: Has someone hijacked your account?

You don't believe that the energy task force is the people's business?

You don't believe, knowing what we now know, that Iraq could have been discussed?

If there is one reason to keep the energy task force secret, Iraq would be it, wouldn't it?

Your patriotism nor your objective curiousity doesn't even compel you to wonder?

Cochise
10-18-2004, 12:03 PM
Yeah, that black and white stuff is BS.

Like blaming Enron solely on the Reps when the Democratic party received 35% of their political donations. Looks like you are guilty of your own decolorization.

Ooops! Democrats were 6 of the 10 biggest recipients of Enron money in the House.

Ooops! Ken Lay was an advisor to the Clinton administration.

Ooops! Clinton officials publicly helped Enron win contracts around the world, and four days before Enron won the India project, Enron gave $100,000 to the DNC.

Ooops! sKerry himself took money from Global Crossing.

Ooops! One of sKerry's biggest supporters is embattled mortgage giant Fannie Mae, and its CEO is a Clinton honk who was supposedly on sKerry's short list for Treasury secretary.

But, we know, only the Republicans are in bed with big business.

And a late ooops! Citigroup is one of Enron's biggest creditors.

penchief
10-18-2004, 12:05 PM
You don't believe that the energy task force is the people's business?

You don't believe, knowing what we now know, that Iraq could have been discussed?

If there is one reason to keep the energy task force secret, Iraq would be it, wouldn't it?

Your patriotism nor your objective curiousity doesn't even compel you to wonder?


I also wonder if the rolling black-outs were discussed, knowing now that they were made up. It would have been a win-win for corporate cronyism. Bush get's a republican governor in the most liberal state in the country and Enron gets to screw the American people for profit.

penchief
10-18-2004, 12:22 PM
Hypocrite penchief doesn't want to hear about it.

Like I have already stated, I have never said that Kerry didn't have corporate donors. I am talking about POLICY!

When, EVERY SINGLE TIME, you side against the American worker and their ability to improve their lives soley for the purpose of corporate greed, something is wrong. I fully believe that this president is the biggest corporate whore ever. John Kerry's record is used against him whenever it is convenient but his record would not indicate that he would be as big a corporate whore as Bush. If so, then Bush wouldn't be calling Ted Kennedy the "conservative senator from Massachusettes." Again, I believe Kerry's social policies would mirror Clinton's

Yeah, those zingers designed to play on the electorate really elevate the debate in this country. But of course, we know a real debate is not what this White House wants. Belittling the opposition is the ticket to re-election. Keeping the electorate in the dark is their goal because shining a light on the true intent and the record of this administration is counterproductive to getting re-elected.

Again, every president has corporate donors. The difference is that no president has ever been so blatantly against the American worker since the days of the industrial revolution, IMO.

Brock
10-18-2004, 12:27 PM
Like I have already stated, I have never said that Kerry didn't have corporate donors. I am talking about POLICY!

When, EVERY SINGLE TIME, you side against the American worker and their ability to improve their lives soley for the purpose of corporate greed, something is wrong.

Right, like that Democratic president who signed NAFTA and GATT. But I guess as long as he throws them a bone like FMLA once in a while, it doesn't matter that they've already been priced out of the market.

penchief
10-18-2004, 12:44 PM
Right, like that Democratic president who signed NAFTA and GATT. But I guess as long as he throws them a bone like FMLA once in a while, it doesn't matter that they've already been priced out of the market.

Can you guys JUST ONCE address the broad criticisms directed at this president that are impossible to deny instead of dredging up inidivual examples designed to deflect away from the obvious realities.

You will always be able to counter a broad, yet true, criticism with individual examples. The basis of the broad criticism, in this case, is EVERY EXAMPLE related to Bush's positions on these issues.

Again, the Lewinsky hummer is not equivalent to the "mushroom cloud" that the president so elequently spoke of. Isolated instances of choosing corporate interests over the American people is not equivalent to their ideological efforts to completely undermine a century of progress in this area.

Please don't interpret my stance to infer that I believe that everything that is good for corporate America is bad for Americans. I don't believe that. However, things that are so blatantly detrimental to average American families and so obviously slanted toward the profit motive that the humanitarian clock is being turned back at such an alarming rate is reason enough to be outraged at this presidency.

I wish people would take their nationalistic blinders off and objectively look at what is really best for this country. IMO, what is best for Americans as a group is always going to be best for the USA.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 12:49 PM
Can you guys JUST ONCE address the broad criticisms directed at this president that are impossible to deny ...inidivual examples designed to deflect away from the obvious realities...choosing corporate interests over the American people ...completely undermine a century of progress in this area....things that are so blatantly detrimental to average American families and so obviously slanted toward the profit motive ...humanitarian clock is being to turned back at such an alarming rate ...

How is anyone supposed to 'address' anything when all you are doing is spouting campaign rhetoric?

Brock
10-18-2004, 12:53 PM
Can you guys JUST ONCE address the broad criticisms directed at this president that are impossible to deny instead of dredging up inidivual examples designed to deflect away from the obvious realities.


Typical. You rationalize away the examples that don't fit your broad generalizations, because it exposes you as a hypocrite. Deja vu.

Radar Chief
10-18-2004, 12:58 PM
Can you guys JUST ONCE address the broad criticisms directed at this president that are impossible to deny instead of dredging up inidivual examples designed to deflect away from the obvious realities.


:LOL: Quit proving me wrong [/whiney voice]

Mr. Kotter
10-18-2004, 12:58 PM
.... Isolated instances of choosing corporate interests over the American people is not equivalent to their ideological efforts to completely undermine a century of progress in this area.....

No exaggeration there, eh? :rolleyes:

penchief
10-18-2004, 01:08 PM
How is anyone supposed to 'address' anything when all you are doing is spouting campaign rhetoric?

First off, I concede that anyone can produce examples of how any candidate has catered to corporate interests. I have also stated that I don't believe that everything that is good for corporate America is bad for Americans.

My criticism of Bush is that in EVERY SINGLE case, he has sided with corporate interests over the interest of average Americans. If you want to talk about jobs, wages, benefits, health insurance, working conditions, the environment, etc., this president has screwed America in favor of corporate greed for no real reason other than an ideological one.

Not only has he sided with corporate America against the American Worker, he has been the vessel in which the screwing of America has take place. He has been the one who has initiated the onslaught.

My challenge to you is not to come up with examples of how the other side has catered to corporate America but to come up with one single solitary example of Bush siding with the American worker over the objections or the interests of Corporate America.

You call it rhetoric but it doesn't mean there is no truth to the matter. That is the point. Instead of labeling or redirecting, address this particular criticism of this president, please.

Brock
10-18-2004, 01:14 PM
solitary example of Bush siding with the American worker over the objections or the interests of Corporate America.

Steel tariffs. And before you claim "The steel industry wanted them", be aware that nobody who buys steel for manufacturing was in favor of it.

penchief
10-18-2004, 01:17 PM
No exaggeration there, eh? :rolleyes:

Not at all. They will only take what they believe they can sell you. Obviously, they don't believe they can reduce the minimum wage but they can oppose an increase. Obviously, they don't believe that they could sell you child labor but they can reduce benefits for families. You get the picture. They will only go as far as they believe they can.

Who would have thought that they could have convinced a large segment of society that clean air and water laws deserved to be rolled back. Not me. But if they can frame an argument in black and white terms which divide the electorate, then they will do it. If you don't believe me just look at how many poeple believe that the Constitution of the United States should be the vehicle in which individual rights should be denied when the beauty and grace of that document is that it is the one document in the history of the world, save Christ's teachings, that promotes humanity without the prejudices that pervade human self-interest.

penchief
10-18-2004, 01:22 PM
Steel tariffs. And before you claim "The steel industry wanted them", be aware that nobody who buys steel for manufacturing was in favor of it.

I'll give you that. Even so, that was a major FLIP-FLOP for political reasons.

Brock
10-18-2004, 01:23 PM
I'll give you that. Even so, that was a major FLIP-FLOP for political reasons.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

You don't even pretend to not be hypocritical anymore, do you?

penchief
10-18-2004, 01:27 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

You don't even pretend to not be hypocritical anymore, do you?

Brock, do YOU even remember what the political pressures on the president were surrounding the steel tarrifs? If so, why don't you explain them to me.

Would you agree that it was a major flip-flop on the president's part and why didn't he support them in the first place?

Please answer these questions is essay form. You have 15 minutes.

Baby Lee
10-18-2004, 01:28 PM
I'll give you that. Even so, that was a major FLIP-FLOP for political reasons.
I'm confused. As a Kerry supporter does that mean you think it was a GOOD thing?

penchief
10-18-2004, 01:28 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

You don't even pretend to not be hypocritical anymore, do you?

Besides, if I were being hypocritical I wouldn't have given you credit for your example, albeit a politically expedient one on the president's part.

penchief
10-18-2004, 01:34 PM
I'm confused. As a Kerry supporter does that mean you think it was a GOOD thing?

I believe that before the Iraq War when the president's approval rating corresponded with his performance, this is an example of the president caving to political pressure. I don't believe it was what he really wanted to do. I believe that his initial stance on the issue is where he really stands. If this had occurred after the Iraq War instead of before I don't believe he would have caved.

My question was, "give me one example" and Brock did. I give him credit because he did. IMO, the record when examined closely doesn't support the idea that the president has ever taken a stand in favor of the American Worker over the interests of corporate America.

In fairness, I framed a question a certain way and it was answered.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 01:51 PM
come up with one single solitary example of Bush siding with the American worker over the objections or the interests of Corporate America.

What you are trying to do here is completely illogical.

For one, you've set up a false dichotomy that the interests of one are not generally that of the other.

Secondly, you're the one making the claim, but now you're trying to shift the burden of proof to the other side.

Yawn

Cochise
10-18-2004, 01:52 PM
Steel tariffs. And before you claim "The steel industry wanted them", be aware that nobody who buys steel for manufacturing was in favor of it.

I would wager that all these kinds of free-trade policies are favorable to the tens of millions of workers whose jobs depend on exports, or the millions more Americans whose paychecks come from foreign entities.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 01:54 PM
I believe that before the Iraq War when the president's approval rating corresponded with his performance, this is an example of the president caving to political pressure.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

He did exactly what you think he should have done and you count it against him.

When he doesn't go your way he's 'siding with corporate America'. When he does, then he's 'caving to political pressure'.

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. :thumb:

Brock
10-18-2004, 01:57 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

He did exactly what you think he should have done and you count it against him.

When he doesn't go your way he's 'siding with corporate America'. When he does, then he's 'caving to political pressure'.

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. :thumb:

Quite right. It is amazing how penchief can spin anything into "Bush bad, Democrats good".

penchief
10-18-2004, 01:58 PM
What you are trying to do here is completely illogical.

For one, you've set up a false dichotomy that the interests of one are not generally that of the other.

Secondly, you're the one making the claim, but now you're trying to shift the burden of proof to the other side.

Yawn

HUH? Is that some kind of slight of hand? A false dichotomy? C'mon! What planet are you living on? When the president does everything he can to grease the skids for the profit motive at the expense of humanity there is no dichotomy. The dichotomy exists when one believes that environmental protections, a living wage, health care for all, equal opportunity for all, etc. are counterproductive to economic growth.

That is the biggest lie of from the corporately owned right-wing in this country. As Bush would say, "make no mistake about it, " IMO, a secure, healthy, happy family is a productive family.

George Bush's America is one in which it's citizens are slaves to the entities that are allowed to control the economy.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 02:01 PM
Quite right. It is amazing how penchief can spin anything into "Bush bad, Democrats good".

Yes, if there were Olympics for performing logical gymnastics, penchief would have just gotten a perfect 10 on the uneven bars.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 02:06 PM
George Bush's America is one in which it's citizens are slaves to the entities that are allowed to control the economy.

And you wonder why no one wants to hang around and argue with you.

It's already been beautifully illustrated by you in your "caving to political pressure" post. Any example that is given that can't be dismissed as a matter of opinion about what is better for whom will be dismissed as having been done for politically expedient reasons.

Why bother?

penchief
10-18-2004, 02:07 PM
Quite right. It is amazing how penchief can spin anything into "Bush bad, Democrats good".

Here we go again. Black & White.

At that time, before 9/11, he was seen for what he really is. His approval ratings were suffering. He was viewed not only as a buffoon but a corporate shill. The political pressures to cave led to what amounts to a major flip-flop.

But do you really believe that he would have done it if those weren't the circumstances? If so, why wasn't that his initial stance?

Again, I will accept you answer in essy form. You have cost yourself five minutes. You now only have ten minutes to produce a relevant answer instead of focusing on my character.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:10 PM
Again, I will accept you answer in essy form. You have cost yourself five minutes. You now only have ten minutes to produce a relevant answer instead of focusing on my character.
Do you honestly expect someone to respond reasonably with demands like the above?

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:14 PM
Do you honestly expect someone to respond reasonably with demands like the above?

I'm actually rather sad to see penchief go this way.

Oh well, we've still got Amnorix.

penchief
10-18-2004, 02:14 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

He did exactly what you think he should have done and you count it against him.

When he doesn't go your way he's 'siding with corporate America'. When he does, then he's 'caving to political pressure'.

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. :thumb:

The only political pressure the president was feeling was low approval ratings. Pennsylvania and Ohio are key to the president's re-election. He may be perceived as having conviction but when his political life is on the line he will sing another tune (i.e. the unvieling of the compassionate conservative during the last debate).

It's funny that NONE of my questions have been answered. Will anybody tell me why Bush flip-flopped on what he really believed. Why did he change his position on the tarrifs. Somebody? ANYBODY?

Brock
10-18-2004, 02:17 PM
Again, I will accept you answer in essy form. You have cost yourself five minutes. You now only have ten minutes to produce a relevant answer instead of focusing on my character.

Pal, I wouldn't waste 30 seconds trying to rework you into a thoughtful human being.

penchief
10-18-2004, 02:18 PM
Do you honestly expect someone to respond reasonably with demands like the above?

It's a joke. I'd just like to see one of you answer my questions with some substance instead of playing the same old game.

You know. I'm a hypocrite, I do verbal gymnastics, blah, blah, blah.

Why did George Bush under immense pressure change his stance on the steel tariffs?

Are the steel tariffs the only example of Bush siding with workers (even though he didn't want to) and going against the interests of corporate America?

How is this not a major FLIP-FLOP executed for politically expedient reasons?

Again, instead of innuendo about myself please try to answer these questions with substance. Essay form would be nice. You now have five minutes.

Iowanian
10-18-2004, 02:19 PM
When Bush Wins, the Dems will have about 3 years to have the new crop rounded up.

Maybe next time, they'll find an electable candidate. Hopefully the Repubs find a good replacement option also.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 02:20 PM
When Bush Wins, the Dems will have about 3 years to have the new crop rounded up.

Maybe next time, they'll find an electable candidate. Hopefully the Repubs find a good replacement option also.
I hope they find better people to support their opinions as well.

penchief
10-18-2004, 02:25 PM
I hope they find better people to support their opinions as well.

I could say the exact same thing about those who restort to innuendo and insinuation about those whom they disagree with as opposed to thoughtful arguments containing substance pertinent to the issues being discussed.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 02:30 PM
I'm actually rather sad to see penchief go this way.

Oh well, we've still got Amnorix.

Yeh... he's about the only one left these days.

penchief
10-18-2004, 02:30 PM
I'm actually rather sad to see penchief go this way.

Oh well, we've still got Amnorix.

Donger, I am sad to see a comment like that from you because I have great respect for you. I am simply asking those criticizing me for my views to produce substance. That is not unreasonable. Unless they are willing to do so, how can you criticize my requesting and not their refusal to provide it?

I don't think I am being unreasonable at all. I have given Brock credit on this thread for providing an example but they are unwilling to defend that example. They are only suggesting that I am being unreasonable.

Your comment is just another example of the same type innuendo. What way did I go, IYO? Asking for answers is no different than trying to hold this president accountable for those things which he refuses to answer for.

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:37 PM
What way did I go.

I'm not sure yet. Maybe a little batty? I was being serious when I asked if someone had hijacked your account. You just "sound" different.

Regardless, if you want me to answer a question, just ask it. If I have an answer, you'll get it.

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 02:39 PM
I'm not sure yet. Maybe a little batty? I was being serious when I asked if someone had hijacked your account. You just "sound" different.

Regardless, if you want me to answer a question, just ask it. If I have an answer, you'll get it.


It's not me, honest. I didn't hijack his account. I'm pissed enough as it is... (not just the election either... other non-bbs stuff...)

penchief
10-18-2004, 02:46 PM
I'm not sure yet. Maybe a little batty? I was being serious when I asked if someone had hijacked your account. You just "sound" different.

Regardless, if you want me to answer a question, just ask it. If I have an answer, you'll get it.

Asking you to answer for them is not appropriate unless you want to. If you have been reading this thread you already know that I have posed several questions concerning Bush's reversal on the steel tariff issue which have gone completely unanswered.

My purpose for asking those questions is to uncover the details that paint the picture for what it reeally is instead of reducing everything to either/or. We all know that either/or is not the way the world works no matter how much the right wing or religious fundamentalists (ala, al Qaida) want us to believe it is.

They are the ones that brought up steel tariffs, not me. If you want to answer my questions regarding Bush's reversal on steel tariffs go back two or three pages to when Brock introduced the issue and read up until this point and answer them.

Like I said, I have great respect for you and I will respond to your answers with respect as I have always done. If you choose not to address this particular issue I will not begrudge you in the least bit because it was not your fight.

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 02:54 PM
When Bush Wins, the Dems will have about 3 years to have the new crop rounded up.

Maybe next time, they'll find an electable candidate. Hopefully the Repubs find a good replacement option also.

It'll be the screaming lunitic Hillery. They love her.

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 02:56 PM
It's not me, honest. I didn't hijack his account. I'm pissed enough as it is... (not just the election either... other non-bbs stuff...)

Did some "Rich White A$$holes" move in next door?

penchief
10-18-2004, 03:01 PM
It'll be the screaming lunitic Hillery. They love her.

I also like the third person references by conservatives on this board in order to belittle the opposition and stroke each other's beliefs so that they can feel better without addressing the issues or answering the questions.

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 03:04 PM
I also like the third person references by conservatives on this board in order to belittle the opposition and stroke each other's beliefs so that they can feel better without addressing the issues or answering the questions.

I believe it's what they fantasize just before climaxing...

penchief
10-18-2004, 03:08 PM
This is a dry well, as usual. When asked to provide substance they scatter like cockroaches. Oh well, I guess we'll move on to defend ourselves against the next batch of accusations and repeat the performance once again.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 03:13 PM
This is a dry well, as usual. When asked to provide substance they scatter like cockroaches. Oh well, I guess we'll move on to defend ourselves against the next batch of accusations and repeat the performance once again.

Nah... others made points that I agreed with, but the fact is that I lack the impetus to continue the discussion, especially after you have already shown your hand. An example was given and you dismissed it as being politically motivated. Why bring in more?

By the way, the fact that no one wants to participate in the discussion with you does not amount to an admission of your point, that would be an argument from silence.

Brock
10-18-2004, 03:15 PM
This is a dry well, as usual. When asked to provide substance they scatter like cockroaches. Oh well, I guess we'll move on to defend ourselves against the next batch of accusations and repeat the performance once again.

Why should anyone bother? Each and every time you are proven wrong, you merely refer to it as "isolated instances" ie Clinton and Nafta that interfere with your closed minded thinking. Arguing with you is like wrestling with a pig. Sorry Hel'n, didn't mean to bring you into it.

Brock
10-18-2004, 03:17 PM
I believe it's what they fantasize just before climaxing...

Yeah, fantasizing. Sort of like what you do with "marketable job skills". It's from hunger.

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 03:19 PM
I also like the third person references by conservatives on this board in order to belittle the opposition and stroke each other's beliefs so that they can feel better without addressing the issues or answering the questions.

My post was a direct response to the post I responded to, nothing more, nothing less. Is it not true?

Mr. Kotter
10-18-2004, 03:20 PM
This is a dry well, as usual. When asked to provide substance they scatter like cockroaches. Oh well, I guess we'll move on to defend ourselves against the next batch of accusations and repeat the performance once again.

pennchief, this is a serious question and I mean no disrespect:

Are you a full-time blogger? If so, are you paid reasonably well; because I'd be interested in THAT gig.... :hmmm:

I mean, honestly, most of us don't have the time, energy, and desire to put the level of thought you seem to think is required of us. For most of us, cursory responses, quick reflections, and short posts are about all we can work in while we are "multi-tasking" or "loafing."

For many of us this is an escape, an outlet; it is not life or death, and each post doesn't need to be a full five-paragraph essay in MLA format, properly cited. While many of us are more informed and better read than the average American, you are expecting us to critically analyze and defend every remark and position we might take--that would require more time than most of us are willing to give it. Despite appearances, most of us do have jobs and a life outside of the planet.

Just my observations....

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 03:26 PM
This is a dry well, as usual. When asked to provide substance they scatter like cockroaches. Oh well, I guess we'll move on to defend ourselves against the next batch of accusations and repeat the performance once again.


Is this a "third person reference"? "Rich White A$$holes" dont know much about roaches.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 03:27 PM
Is this a "third person reference"? "Rich White A$$holes" dont know much about roaches.

What are they?

Oh damn - gotta go. Jeeves is here with my afternoon tea.

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 03:28 PM
Yeah, fantasizing. Sort of like what you do with "marketable job skills". It's from hunger.

You've never tried my job skills....

:p

Cochise
10-18-2004, 03:32 PM
You've never tried my job skills....

:p

:eek: :hmmm:

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 03:33 PM
You've never tried my job skills....

:p


:eek: :Lin:

penchief
10-18-2004, 03:46 PM
Nah... others made points that I agreed with, but the fact is that I lack the impetus to continue the discussion, especially after you have already shown your hand. An example was given and you dismissed it as being politically motivated. Why bring in more?

By the way, the fact that no one wants to participate in the discussion with you does not amount to an admission of your point, that would be an argument from silence.

What points were made? Other than I'm a hypocrite or a hopeless partisan without answering the substance of my questions. Can you answer that? Are you willing to answer the half dozen or so questions that I posed that no one else was willing to do, including you?

This is so typical of the way you guys do it. Just like your conservative leadership at the top you say "he's not a good man" but avoid the issues.

Well, hell yeah I'm politically motivated. I can't stand to see our country and it's reputation run into the ground by self-righteous ideologues who lost the popular vote but believe they have a mandate from God. I can't stand that they lie to us as a matter of policy. I can't stand that which was advocated by our founding fathers is being shit on by a bunch of business suits who have no clue what liberty and freedom are all about. To them it is the freedom to crap on anything that stands in their way of total control and the profit motive.

So you can keep playing this charade or you can answer my questions. Otherwise shut up.

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 03:49 PM
:eek: :hmmm:

Sorry... when I get a chance at off-color humor or making political hay...

... I choose the off-color humor every time!!!!

;)

penchief
10-18-2004, 04:01 PM
pennchief, this is a serious question and I mean no disrespect:

Are you a full-time blogger? If so, are you paid reasonably well; because I'd be interested in THAT gig.... :hmmm:

I mean, honestly, most of us don't have the time, energy, and desire to put the level of thought you seem to think is required of us. For most of us, cursory responses, quick reflections, and short posts are about all we can work in while we are "multi-tasking" or "loafing."

For many of us this is an escape, an outlet; it is not life or death, and each post doesn't need to be a full five-paragraph essay in MLA format, properly cited. While many of us are more informed and better read than the average American, you are expecting us to critically analyze and defend every remark and position we might take--that would require more time than most of us are willing to give it. Despite appearances, most of us do have jobs and a life outside of the planet.

Just my observations....

No, not at all. I am just someone that cares deeply about my country. I am a Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln American.

I am not necessarily concerned about the depth of substance unless their is a total lack of substance. A person should not be able to make a matter-of-fact statement without at least some substance. Especially when they forego substance in favor of personal attacks and innuendo.

I am an observant person and I have a decent memory. While I do sometimes research before I post a comment or when I am challenged I usually just say what I naturally feel or remember. Sometimes it is an asset and sometimes it is a curse.

In fact, this whole blogger thing is just a word to me. Even though I have heard of them quite a bit during this campaign I haven't even explored what the hell a blogger is yet.


I do have a job and I just finished my degree. So it is not that I don't have a life. It is just that the plight of this country is very precarious at this time. I know that many of you don't see it the same way I do but I believe that the foundations of our great nation are being threatened by far-right/evangelical/corportate control of our government because, after all, it is control that they want and not the traditions of liberty and justice for all, IMO.

So while I am quite wordy at times, I do want people to convince me that I don't have anything to worry about but I am not reassured when all I get is the same old character attacks that the right in this country practices as a matter of policy.

penchief
10-18-2004, 04:06 PM
Is this a "third person reference"? "Rich White A$$holes" dont know much about roaches.

Now you get it.

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 04:16 PM
Now you get it.

I work at Burger King making flame broiled woppers I wear paper hats. Would you like an apple pie with that, would you like an apple pie with that? Ding fries are done.

penchief
10-18-2004, 04:17 PM
I work at Burger King making flame broiled woppers I wear paper hats. Would you like an apple pie with that, would you like an apple pie with that?

If you are talking about me, hardly. Is this more innuendo or am I missing something?

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 04:30 PM
If you are talking about me, hardly. Is this more innuendo or am I missing something?

I'm just messen with ya dude. It's just the first think that comes to mind whenever I hear someone say that the foundations of our great nation are being threatened by far-right/evangelical/corportate control of our government because, after all, it is control that they want and not the traditions of liberty and justice for all, IMO. Hell, IMO the only thing that the "far-right/evangelical/corportate" are in controll of are all the Super Bowl tickets.

OldTownChief
10-18-2004, 04:31 PM
Hel'n that is a beautiful Avatar.

pink
10-27-2004, 02:48 PM
I'd vouch for that; Phob employs no double standard....he's an obnoxious asshole to everyone. Just ask Pink.
...
yeah, just ask me ...

NOTE TO SELF: emphatically deny, deny, deny ... good wifey

Mr. Kotter
10-27-2004, 02:58 PM
yeah, just ask me ...

NOTE TO SELF: emphatically deny, deny, deny ... good wifey

ROFL

Nice to see ya on-line....try to keep Phil in-line until Sunday. You both gonna be at B5?

listopencil
10-27-2004, 03:03 PM
If I am an African American is it OK if I start throwing around the "N" word when refering to Blacks I don't like?


Funny you should mention that. Twice in the last few years I told black friends of our family not to use the N word in my house. One was a lady that lived with us for a few months while she was going through some tough times. She used the phrase "Nigga please" as a joke. She explained to me that it's just a figure of speach and so forth. I told her that I didn't like the term regardless and that it bothered me to hear that word. I asked her not to. She said it was no problem and she would remember not to use it around me. The other was a young man, a friend of my son's. He was randomly singing a part of some popular song while we were hanging out in the living room. It was pretty much the same conversation. I don't think it's OK regardless of your skin color.

Phobia
10-27-2004, 04:01 PM
ROFL

Nice to see ya on-line....try to keep Phil in-line until Sunday. You both gonna be at B5?

No. We have no current plans to attend the game. Probably won't unless some the ticket fairy stops by....

pink
10-27-2004, 04:04 PM
ROFL

Nice to see ya on-line....try to keep Phil in-line until Sunday. You both gonna be at B5?
i gave up trying to keep the boy in line long time ago ...