Democrats Dishonor Iraq War Dead [Archive]

Nightwish

07-14-2006, 11:09 AM

Feh, both sides will use and abuse the troops however they can to weasel a little edge at the ballot box.
Agreed. This is no worse than the Republican tendency to use military sacrifices as a podium for political grandstanding.

Dave Lane

07-14-2006, 01:15 PM

I'm certain if Clinton had started this war the Reps would not bring up anything about the deaths over there.

ROFL

Reject congrats on continuing to cement your lead in the dumbest man alive race...

Dave

jAZ

07-14-2006, 01:24 PM

... U.S. flag-draped coffins ...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s67qaViGNBU"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s67qaViGNBU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Pitt Gorilla

07-14-2006, 02:04 PM

Pitt Gorilla

07-14-2006, 11:16 PM

read the article u idiot.... complete irony.... they blast Bush for using it, but they use it?!

"As the Redstate.com blog notes, when President Bush showed images of September 11 in a 2004 campaign commercial, Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Tony Welch said it "was simply wrong for the president to use images of the 9/11 tragedy for political purposes."

The International Association of Fire Fighters passed a resolution criticizing the ad – and the Democrats used it in the John Kerry campaign.

Redstate asks: "Where are these people now? Where are they now that the Democrats are using dead soldiers for fund-raising purposes? Silent."Read the other 90% of the article "u idiot." Is the majority of the article complaining about both parties' uses?

Braincase

07-15-2006, 09:44 PM

Creating dead soldiers is much more honorable than showing footage of dead soldiers.

recxjake

07-16-2006, 07:41 AM

Creating dead soldiers is much more honorable than showing footage of dead soldiers.

thats right, kerry voted against the war, before he voted for it and then agaisnt it.... yea

Braincase

07-16-2006, 08:34 AM

thats right, kerry voted against the war, before he voted for it and then agaisnt it.... yea

Sorry, I guess I have no idea why you went there. I didn't vote for Kerry.

Oh, and I am a registered Republican and I drive a Buick Park Avenue.

recxjake

07-16-2006, 08:47 AM

Sorry, I guess I have no idea why you went there. I didn't vote for Kerry.

Oh, and I am a registered Republican and I drive a Buick Park Avenue.

what im saying is, Democrats make this huge fuss about saying they are against the war.... but yet the majority of them voted for it?!

Saul Good

07-16-2006, 08:59 AM

The biggest difference is the fact that Democrats can't stand the military. (And based on the percentage of soldiers who vote Democrat, the feeling is mutual.) They pretend to be so worried about the soldiers dying, but they can't wait for the next body count so they can use it as a political club.
I say let the Dems keep campaigning this way. They haven't gotten 50% of the popular vote for president in 30 years now. Keep it up.

Braincase

07-16-2006, 10:12 AM

what im saying is, Democrats make this huge fuss about saying they are against the war.... but yet the majority of them voted for it?!

Based on evidence that Colin Powell himself said was flawed, right?

The biggest difference is the fact that Democrats can't stand the military. (And based on the percentage of soldiers who vote Democrat, the feeling is mutual.) They pretend to be so worried about the soldiers dying, but they can't wait for the next body count so they can use it as a political club.
I say let the Dems keep campaigning this way. They haven't gotten 50% of the popular vote for president in 30 years now. Keep it up.

Blanket statement about Democrats is, well, stupid...kind of like saying all Republicans work aggressively for balanced budgets and reducing the deficit. I think you'll find your statement about the popular vote misleading as well... Gore beat Bush if the popular vote is your standard... (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html)

Nightwish

07-16-2006, 10:16 AM

what im saying is, Democrats make this huge fuss about saying they are against the war.... but yet the majority of them voted for it?!
Only in the Senate. The majority of Dems in the House voted against it, and the majority of Dems in Congress, overall, voted against it.

Saul Good

07-16-2006, 10:37 AM

Based on evidence that Colin Powell himself said was flawed, right?

Blanket statement about Democrats is, well, stupid...kind of like saying all Republicans work aggressively for balanced budgets and reducing the deficit. I think you'll find your statement about the popular vote misleading as well... Gore beat Bush if the popular vote is your standard... (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html)
I suppose I should replace the word "Democrats" with "Liberals" in that context. Popular vote victory for Gore or not, he still didn't get 50% of the popular vote. No Democratic candidate has in 30 years. As long as they continue to seek political hay on the backs of the deaths of our bravest (whom they didn't support in life), they will never get half of the voters to vote for them.
There's nothing misleading about the statement, though. There has been only one Democrat elected president since the Carter debacle. The last time a true conservative ran for president, he carried 49 states. I find nothing misleading here. I would consider that to be pretty straight-forward.

Bowser

07-16-2006, 10:39 AM

Popular vote victory for Gore or not, he still didn't get 50% of the popular vote.

ROFL

Saul Good

07-16-2006, 10:41 AM

ROFL
Are you implying that he did?

Bowser

07-16-2006, 10:46 AM

Are you implying that he did?

I'm implying that that statement makes no sense and makes me laugh.

Nightwish

07-16-2006, 10:48 AM

The biggest difference is the fact that Democrats can't stand the military.
They can't stand the military? Where did you get that gem from?

(And based on the percentage of soldiers who vote Democrat, the feeling is mutual.)
I'll have to dig it up, but an article from an issue of Army Times (or something like that) indicated that the percentage breakdown of soldiers by voting party is roughly 50/50. Where the Republicans take the commanding lead in the military is among commissioned officers, but in the enlisted ranks, it's about even.

They pretend to be so worried about the soldiers dying, but they can't wait for the next body count so they can use it as a political club.
Same way the Repubs do when it is the Dems in charge. Have you forgotten the cries about the innocent dead we kept hearing from the Republicans during Kosovo?

I say let the Dems keep campaigning this way. They haven't gotten 50% of the popular vote for president in 30 years now. Keep it up.
Yet they've won the popular vote in four of the last eight elections. What does that say about the Republicans?

Saul Good

07-16-2006, 10:48 AM

I'm implying that that statement makes no sense and makes me laugh.
I know it's a difficult concept to grasp that the majority of the electorate would vote against the Democrat on the presidential ballot for 30 years and counting, but it makes perfect sense to me. It makes me laugh too.

Braincase

07-16-2006, 10:53 AM

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp that the majority of the electorate would vote against the Democrat on the presidential ballot for 30 years and counting, but it makes perfect sense to me. It makes me laugh too.

It's not a difficult concept in the least, and you are making a poor attempt at condescenion.

One of the things I can claim, however, as a Republican that did not support the reelection of Bush (or the election of Kerry) is that I can look at the mess that the country is in and pretty much point at you and say "It's his fault! I didn't vote for the jackass".

The jackass I voted for didn't even make a blip on the radar. So, indeed, your jackass is a much bigger jackass than my jackass.

Nightwish

07-16-2006, 10:55 AM

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp that the majority of the electorate would vote against the Democrat on the presidential ballot for 30 years and counting, but it makes perfect sense to me. It makes me laugh too.
That is largely due to the popularity of the Independent and Green Parties, which have been growing steadily for decades. The 50% marker is only meaningful when there are only two candidates running. When there are more than two candidates making a showing, then 50% is a rather meaningless and arbitrary number. Perhaps it's escaped your notice, but the country is gradually trying to pull out of the 2-party deadlock. Over the past 30 years, the Republicans have showed almost as poorly as the Democrats.

Bowser

07-16-2006, 11:02 AM

I know it's a difficult concept to grasp that the majority of the electorate would vote against the Democrat on the presidential ballot for 30 years and counting, but it makes perfect sense to me. It makes me laugh too.

Hold up. Are we talking popular vote, or electorate vote? I thought we were talking popular, hence my ROFL at the comment.

jAZ

07-16-2006, 11:25 AM

what im saying is, Democrats make this huge fuss about saying they are against the war.... but yet the majority of them voted for it?!
They were wrong. Something Bush and his supporters have a hard time confronting in themselves.

FringeNC

07-16-2006, 11:31 AM

The ad was pulled. Personally, I don't find the ad to be offensive, but it is very predictable that many would. The DLC has to be furious at the Kos/Dean crowd for airing this.

The most offensive recent ad I can remeber seeing is when Gore tried to insinuate that Bush ordered a lynching of a black man while governor of Texas. If I am not mistaken, Texas executed the perpetrator of the crime.

Nightwish

07-16-2006, 11:38 AM

The ad was pulled. Personally, I don't find the ad to be offensive, but it is very predictable that many would. The DLC has to be furious at the Kos/Dean crowd for airing this.
They may well be. For the most part, I think this is mostly just payback from the Republicans who are still chagrined over having been made to pull their ads when they came under fire for using images of 9/11 to politicize an ad campaign.

The most offensive recent ad I can remeber seeing is when Gore tried to insinuate that Bush ordered a lynching of a black man while governor of Texas. If I am not mistaken, Texas executed the perpetrator of the crime.
I'm thinking one of three things happened: 1) the ad was made, but almost immediately pulled so that very few people ever knew about it; 2) the ad was independently made, shown only very locally, and was not associated with the Dem party; or 3) you misinterpreted something you saw in the ad, and it didn't really claim what you say it claimed. Because if it did portray what you say it did, was associated with the Democratic party, and was publically shown or hosted, then you and I both know the RNC would have made a huge stink about it, and would have splashed it across the headlines from coast to coast.

FringeNC

07-16-2006, 11:47 AM

They may well be. For the most part, I think this is mostly just payback from the Republicans who are still chagrined over having been made to pull their ads when they came under fire for using images of 9/11 to politicize an ad campaign.

I'm thinking one of three things happened: 1) the ad was made, but almost immediately pulled so that very few people ever knew about it; 2) the ad was independently made, shown only very locally, and was not associated with the Dem party; or 3) you misinterpreted something you saw in the ad, and it didn't really claim what you say it claimed. Because if it did portray what you say it did, was associated with the Democratic party, and was publically shown or hosted, then you and I both know the RNC would have made a huge stink about it, and would have splashed it across the headlines from coast to coast.

I can't find the ad, but here is what a liberal blogger had to say about it:

"Although that horrific NAACP lynching ad was by far the worst ad of the year..."

patteeu

07-16-2006, 01:04 PM

They can't stand the military? Where did you get that gem from?

When John Murtha is one of the party's staunchest supporters of the military, that party is the friend that negates the need for enemies.

Nightwish

07-16-2006, 01:12 PM

When John Murtha is one of the party's staunchest supporters of the military, that party is the friend that negates the need for enemies.
You really have a cob up your ass about Murtha, don't you? Did he wrong you in another life? Your witchunt for Murtha is getting tiresome.

patteeu

07-16-2006, 01:15 PM

You really have a cob up your ass about Murtha, don't you? Did he wrong you in another life? Your witchunt for Murtha is getting tiresome.

He wronged me and all other Americans in this life. You just haven't realized it yet.

Nightwish

07-16-2006, 01:18 PM

He wronged me and all other Americans in this life. You just haven't realized it yet.Enough with the cheeseball rhetoric, pat. Tell us how he wronged you and "all other Americans in this life." How much further up the neocon ass are you going to need to lodge your head before you can no longer extract it?

Adept Havelock

07-16-2006, 01:56 PM

He wronged me and all other Americans in this life. You just haven't realized it yet.

Wow. My Hyperbole meter just pegged at 11.

patteeu

07-16-2006, 02:33 PM

Wow. My Hyperbole meter just pegged at 11.

I don't think "hyperbole" is the word you are looking for here. You might disagree with me, but I think it's hard to call what I said an exaggeration.

Pitt Gorilla

07-16-2006, 03:57 PM

One of the things I can claim, however, as a Republican that did not support the reelection of Bush (or the election of Kerry) is that I can look at the mess that the country is in and pretty much point at you and say "It's his fault! I didn't vote for the jackass".

The jackass I voted for didn't even make a blip on the radar. So, indeed, your jackass is a much bigger jackass than my jackass.Hey, that looks like my voting record. I actually learned from my mistake.

Adept Havelock

07-16-2006, 04:12 PM

I don't think "hyperbole" is the word you are looking for here. You might disagree with me, but I think it's hard to call what I said an exaggeration.

Actually it was the word I'm looking for, as IMO you are clearly exaggerating. However, I'll amend it just to make you happy:

Wow, my "Utter and Complete Balderdash" meter just pegged at 11.

jAZ

07-16-2006, 04:45 PM

You really have a cob up your ass about Murtha, don't you? Did he wrong you in another life? Your witchunt for Murtha is getting tiresome.
It seems that the orders went out about a month ago to being the coordinated Swiftboating of Murtha.

<embed src=http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Murtha-Smear.wmv autoplay=false></embed>

I don't believe for a minute that patteeu is "following orders". His behavior is just a natural outcome of that Swiftboating... which is to say that the average joe picks up the media chatter and makes it their focus as well.

patteeu

07-16-2006, 07:47 PM

Actually it was the word I'm looking for, as IMO you are clearly exaggerating.

I can't imagine what part of my post you think was an exaggeration.

However, I'll amend it just to make you happy:

Wow, my "Utter and Complete Balderdash" meter just pegged at 11.

ROFL At least I can understand that one.

patteeu

07-16-2006, 08:13 PM

It seems that the orders went out about a month ago to being the coordinated Swiftboating of Murtha.

That might be an interesting basis for a theory if it weren't for the fact that I've been criticizing Murtha and Nightwish's infatuation with the man for over 7 months.

I don't believe for a minute that patteeu is "following orders". His behavior is just a natural outcome of that Swiftboating... which is to say that the average joe picks up the media chatter and makes it their focus as well.

You left out a possibility. Maybe I'm giving the orders. Then again, maybe it's completely unrelated given the timing issues that you overlooked.

Nightwish

07-16-2006, 08:51 PM

That might be an interesting basis for a theory if it weren't for the fact that I've been criticizing Murtha and Nightwish's infatuation with the man for over 7 months.

Whoo! You really don't pay attention well these days, do you? Has the neocon earworm finally eaten its way into your brain? For about the gazillionth time, I don't agree with Murtha. My "infatuation," if it can be said that I have one, is with your particular pattern of getting it utterly and completely wrong every time you've tried to convey to us what his argument actually was. If you weren't so wont to omit 2/3 of what he actually says each time you try to convey his words to us, you wouldn't be such fun and easy pickings!

jAZ

07-16-2006, 09:40 PM

That might be an interesting basis for a theory if it weren't for the fact that I've been criticizing Murtha and Nightwish's infatuation with the man for over 7 months.

7 months ago, you were going after his policy (no matter how distorted your view of it was)... recently you've changed to going after Murtha. That change co-incides with the Swiftboating campaign against him. Strangely, that was right when Lattimer started going after him too.

:hmmm:

Nightwish

07-16-2006, 09:48 PM

7 months ago, you were going after his policy (no matter how distorted your view of it was)... recently you've changed to going after Murtha. That change co-incides with the Swiftboating campaign against him. Strangely, that was right when Lattimer started going after him too.

:hmmm:
I've noticed lately that Lattimer and Patteeu are two people of the ilk that are unable to bring themselves to think a thought that hasn't first made all the rounds in the neocon community. Thinking outside the box is anathema to them.

patteeu

07-17-2006, 06:16 AM

7 months ago, you were going after his policy (no matter how distorted your view of it was)... recently you've changed to going after Murtha. That change co-incides with the Swiftboating campaign against him. Strangely, that was right when Lattimer started going after him too.

:hmmm:

ROFL You're just sore because I called you recxjAZ. I guess that you find it hard to imagine that other people have original thoughts since you seem to get most of yours from Josh Marshall and the Muck.

patteeu

07-17-2006, 06:17 AM

I've noticed lately that Lattimer and Patteeu are two people of the ilk that are unable to bring themselves to think a thought that hasn't first made all the rounds in the neocon community. Thinking outside the box is anathema to them.

Woot! I'm part of an "ilk!"

Bootlegged

07-20-2006, 06:13 PM

It seems that the orders went out about a month ago to being the coordinated Swiftboating of Murtha.

<embed src=http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Murtha-Smear.wmv autoplay=false></embed>

I don't believe for a minute that patteeu is "following orders". His behavior is just a natural outcome of that Swiftboating... which is to say that the average joe picks up the media chatter and makes it their focus as well.

Irony? ROFL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2716377