Stay the Course [Archive]

irishjayhawk

10-26-2006, 11:30 PM

I'm sure you've all seen this by now, but it's a funny commercial. Even conservatives have to admit.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Jq0j80UB_c"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Jq0j80UB_c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Ultra Peanut

10-26-2006, 11:41 PM

Why do you hate our freedom?

Ugly Duck

10-27-2006, 12:56 AM

Even conservatives have to admit.
No they don't. They'll come up with some convoluted pretzel of a rationale they makes sense only to them.

Pitt Gorilla

10-27-2006, 01:22 AM

When he said "Stay the course", he didn't really mean it, or, uh, he meant something else.

Ultra Peanut

10-27-2006, 01:51 AM

He was off his meds and faking it.

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-27-2006, 02:28 AM

He was talking about staying ON THE GOLF COURSE...to play another nine. While on vacation. Again.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 07:30 AM

I guess the democrats think they have to play these sleight-of-hand games to get elected. It speaks to their lack of substance in general and their lack of seriousness in the GWoT specifically.

BucEyedPea

10-27-2006, 08:31 AM

I guess the democrats think they have to play these sleight-of-hand games to get elected. It speaks to their lack of substance in general and their lack of seriousness in the GWoT specifically.
Come patty, as if Bush Republicans haven't played sleight-of-hand games.
I know you, and his rank-n'-file supporters believe the Bush rhetoric but politicians on both sides posture and use verbal-sleight-of-hand.

BTW, one course I teach is advertising...that ad is very effective because it is very emotional! Even if there is NO real difference between the two major parties. It doesn't communicate to you because you're not the public for it. It's for the average Joe.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 09:54 AM

Come patty, as if Bush Republicans haven't played sleight-of-hand games.
I know you, and his rank-n'-file supporters believe the Bush rhetoric but politicians on both sides posture and use verbal-sleight-of-hand.

BTW, one course I teach is advertising...that ad is very effective because it is very emotional! Even if there is NO real difference between the two major parties. It doesn't communicate to you because you're not the public for it. It's for the average Joe.

I agree with what you are saying. I assume that you agree that this ad implies something that isn't true.

Cochise

10-27-2006, 10:16 AM

This settles it, I'm definitely not voting for Bush this time.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 10:19 AM

This settles it, I'm definitely not voting for Bush this time.

LMAO I haven't talked to single person who is going to vote for Bush this year and I live in a pretty Republican-friendly area. I guess ads like that one are working. ;)

banyon

10-27-2006, 10:24 AM

A vote for the rubber stamps is a vote for Bush.

BucEyedPea

10-27-2006, 12:30 PM

I assume that you agree that this ad implies something that isn't true.
Huh? Like what...that he keeps changin' his rhetoric. That's not true?
Or that the Dems have a better aka different plan not being true?

Bowser

10-27-2006, 12:32 PM

He was off his meds and faking it.

"and boom goes the dynamite"

patteeu

10-27-2006, 12:53 PM

Huh? Like what...that he keeps changin' his rhetoric. That's not true?
Or that the Dems have a better aka different plan not being true?

That the President has changed his plan is not true.

BucEyedPea

10-27-2006, 01:22 PM

That the President has changed his plan is not true.

I don't know where you're gettin' this idea...but I didn't see issue with that.
I got they wanted a change of plan. As I hear it the Dem leadership is more hawkish and will increase troops. I thought it showed he changed his rhetoric and/or reasons for going in.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 01:50 PM

I don't know where you're gettin' this idea...but I didn't see issue with that.
I got they wanted a change of plan. As I hear it the Dem leadership is more hawkish and will increase troops. I thought it showed he changed his rhetoric and/or reasons for going in.

That's what I took from the video the first time I watched it. Maybe it strikes different people different ways. I'll watch it again the next time I'm somewhere with fast internet.

You'd agree that the change in the President's rhetoric doesn't represent a significant change in plan though, wouldn't you?

BucEyedPea

10-27-2006, 02:03 PM

You'd agree that the change in the President's rhetoric doesn't represent a significant change in plan though, wouldn't you?

UNCLE! Unfortunately yes. *sigh* :( Which means he isn't being truthful either.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 02:11 PM

UNCLE!

LMAO Sorry to twist your arm so hard. :)

Sully

10-27-2006, 02:21 PM

patteeu

10-27-2006, 02:30 PM

It's never been a 'Stay the Course' strategy" says all i need to hear.

It is either a lie that they have never meant what everyone thought they meant by that term, or it is a was a very thoughtful misrepresentation of their strategy in a way that would paint those who disagreed with them as "Cut and Run"-ers.
Either way it is an outright lie, and only in the gymnastics of the mind can it be seen as not such.

First of all, if that's all you need to hear then it's apparent to me that you don't care about context or any kind of analysis that get's below the superficial.

Second, your false choice leaves out the reality that the President's "stay the course" phrase always clearly (and explicitly on several occasions) meant we would maintain the same goal and general strategy while adjusting tactics as necessary to handle the evolving situation, as contrasted by the corruption of that phrase offered by his antagonists that pushed the notion that no change, however small, would be considered. It is this latter, corrupted phrase that you've quoted the President using in response to a question from George Stephanopolis that you've decided you don't need to hear.

It never get's old to ask what's happened to that famous liberal ability to understand nuance?

Taco John

10-27-2006, 03:46 PM

First of all, if that's all you need to hear then it's apparent to me that you don't care about context or any kind of analysis that get's below the superficial.

Second, your false choice leaves out the reality that the President's "stay the course" phrase always clearly (and explicitly on several occasions) meant we would maintain the same goal and general strategy while adjusting tactics as necessary to handle the evolving situation, as contrasted by the corruption of that phrase offered by his antagonists that pushed the notion that no change, however small, would be considered. It is this latter, corrupted phrase that you've quoted the President using in response to a question from George Stephanopolis that you've decided you don't need to hear.

It never get's old to ask what's happened to that famous liberal ability to understand nuance?

Bah... You're just pissed that the democrats are ripping off the same tactic that the RNC used to smear Kerry.

Nuance = Flip Flopping, right?

go bowe

10-27-2006, 04:23 PM

scott free

10-27-2006, 04:29 PM

That's what I took from the video the first time I watched it. Maybe it strikes different people different ways. I'll watch it again the next time I'm somewhere with fast internet.

You'd agree that the change in the President's rhetoric doesn't represent a significant change in plan though, wouldn't you?
I guess i just think he takes average Americans for big idiots, what is the point of changing the buzzwords when the plan is the same??? Its like putting "New Look" on a box of cereal when the product hasnt changed. Who cares how its couched when the content is the same??? I take it as a slap that they admit nothings changed but the wording.

irishjayhawk

10-27-2006, 05:57 PM

Bah... You're just pissed that the democrats are ripping off the same tactic that the RNC used to smear Kerry.

Nuance = Flip Flopping, right?
Pat - what would you say to TJ's take? I have the same take as well. They blasted Kerry for flip-floping or changing his words around etc, and yet they do it right here.

CRONUS

10-27-2006, 06:15 PM

Pat - what would you say to TJ's take? I have the same take as well. They blasted Kerry for flip-floping or changing his words around etc, and yet they do it right here.

patteeu will always defend the President, even if that appears to make him irrationale. I have been very suprised by this constant. Clearly this is a case of the President altering his position just like Kerry did when he was accused of flip flopping. patteeu will look for minutia to try to slough it off as different.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 08:39 PM

Bah... You're just pissed that the democrats are ripping off the same tactic that the RNC used to smear Kerry.

Nuance = Flip Flopping, right?

Wrong. Not even close.

I'm on record saying that Kerry's "I voted for the 87 mil before I voted against it" wasn't really a flip-flop. Instead it was offensive because it showed that funding the troops was, at best, second on Kerry's priority list to raising taxes (or if you want to be charitable, to keeping the deficit from growing). In Kerry's case, something real was at stake. He was holding the funding issue hostage to a tax increase.

In this case, nothing real is at stake. It's a fight over language. It's a case of Bush trying to protect the integrity of his communications with the American people instead of letting his opponents mislead them by corrupting his slogan. Apparently, he's come to the conclusion that the leftwing spin merchants have succeeded in corrupting the meaning of "stay the course" sufficiently to make him decide to change terminology and try to clarify his policy.

It's really not even similar.

irishjayhawk

10-27-2006, 08:46 PM

patteeu

10-27-2006, 08:47 PM

I guess i just think he takes average Americans for big idiots, what is the point of changing the buzzwords when the plan is the same??? Its like putting "New Look" on a box of cereal when the product hasnt changed. Who cares how its couched when the content is the same??? I take it as a slap that they admit nothings changed but the wording.

There are a lot of average Americans who don't follow politics very closely. They aren't necessarily idiots, but when the casual observer is bombarded with a designed message that equates "stay the course" with "stubbornly refuse to change anything" it's understandable that a certain percentage of those average Americans end up with an imperfect understanding of what "stay the course" really means. The administration explained the phrase on countless occasions, but in the end they must have come to the conclusion that the dems had succeeded in their mischaracterization efforts.

When the President gave that answer, anyone with half a brain who was willing to listen to what was being said understood that the policy wasn't changing. That's not what I'd describe as "admitting" but instead what I'd describe as "explaining." There is a significant and important difference of connotation.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 08:50 PM

patteeu will always defend the President, even if that appears to make him irrationale. I have been very suprised by this constant. Clearly this is a case of the President altering his position just like Kerry did when he was accused of flip flopping. patteeu will look for minutia to try to slough it off as different.

Well, I guess I proved you wrong. Kerry didn't change his position with that second vote, he exposed his true position. The two votes weren't inconsistent with each other as I've said several times before. Bush didn't change his position either. The difference with Bush is that his position was well explained (to anyone who gave him a fair listen) all along and the statement in the OP is just a different way of explaining the very same thing since some people were apparently having trouble with the earlier explanations.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 08:54 PM

Well, I was still on the fence about your willingness to stick with Bush and co. However, that response has prompted me to take Logical's stance.

And if you need something to be at stake, the Congress is at steak and since he's head of the party and country, he is trying his best to spin positive light onto a grim situation in an effort to keep his Congress intact.

I never had any doubt about where you'd come down on this. When it comes to politics, objectivity isn't your strong suit. I try to work with you though because I realize you're probably handicapped by a jayhawk education. :p

memyselfI

10-27-2006, 11:28 PM

R.I.P stay the course... ROFL

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=597ed94a-19de-46eb-9709-5e98859da5f0&p=News_Comment%20-%20Analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=

CRONUS

10-27-2006, 11:45 PM

Well, I guess I proved you wrong. Kerry didn't change his position with that second vote, he exposed his true position. The two votes weren't inconsistent with each other as I've said several times before. Bush didn't change his position either. The difference with Bush is that his position was well explained (to anyone who gave him a fair listen) all along and the statement in the OP is just a different way of explaining the very same thing since some people were apparently having trouble with the earlier explanations.ROFL

No matter how you couch it you will find a way to defend the President no matter how irrationale. Just like I said. You just chose a different tactic.

Pitt Gorilla

10-28-2006, 12:11 AM

Well, I guess I proved you wrong. Kerry didn't change his position with that second vote, he exposed his true position. The two votes weren't inconsistent with each other as I've said several times before. Bush didn't change his position either. The difference with Bush is that his position was well explained (to anyone who gave him a fair listen) all along and the statement in the OP is just a different way of explaining the very same thing since some people were apparently having trouble with the earlier explanations.What does "exposing his true position" have to do with "flip-flop?" Did Republicans not understand nuance or did they think their voting populace was too stupid to get it?

CHIEF4EVER

10-28-2006, 05:33 AM

irrationale

Are you French or did you mean irrational? Just checking. :p :Poke:

penchief

10-28-2006, 06:18 AM

I guess the democrats think they have to play these sleight-of-hand games to get elected. It speaks to their lack of substance in general and their lack of seriousness in the GWoT specifically.

That may be the most ironic statement I have ever read. The opposite could not be more true. I respect your verbal acumen and your abiltiy to cloak your partisanship in moderate language but this statement exposes the extremism in your beliefs, IMO.

Republicans have pefected avoiding issues in favor of focusing on wedge non-issues. Republicans have perfected irrelevant personal attacks to the detriment of serious political discourse. Republicans will say or do anything to get elected. It doesn't matter how vile or untrue.

It is blatantly obvious which party will stoop to the sleaziest levels to get elected. For you to suggest the exact opposite in the face of the RNC's behavior during these mid terms is breathtaking, even for you. It undermines your own efforts to portray yourself as more observant and thoughtful than those with whom you disagree. If you really believe your own words then all I can assume is that you must be blinded by your own partisanship.

If anything, this is an excellent example of the sleight-of-hand verbal games in which you constantly employ in the defense of the indefensible by this administration and the republican party.

CHIEF4EVER

10-28-2006, 06:39 AM

Republicans have pefected avoiding issues in favor of focusing on wedge non-issues. Republicans have perfected irrelevant personal attacks to the detriment of serious political discourse. Republicans will say or do anything to get elected. It doesn't matter how vile or untrue.
Care to specify? Methinks you may want to take off your Democrat Blue glasses when making such assertions if you want to appear credible.

Side note: I personally think both the Reps and the Dems are equally sleazy when it comes to election ads. Sad, really.

penchief

10-28-2006, 07:09 AM

Care to specify? Methinks you may want to take off your Democrat Blue glasses when making such assertions if you want to appear credible.

Side note: I personally think both the Reps and the Dems are equally sleazy when it comes to election ads. Sad, really.

We can start with right now. What ads have the DNC run that compare to the Harold Ford ads? Or the ads the RNC are running against Ron Kind? You know, the one where they say he voted to spend tax dollars to study the masturbation habits of teenage girls, among other things? Or the one where they accuse a congressman of calling a sex hotline from his hotel room and charging it to the taxpayer? Where in reality a staffer misdialed by one number when trying to call another government agency? All produced by the RNC.

Making secret deals with Iranian terrorists during the hostage crisis rates as pretty sleazy. Can't think of anything the dems ever did like that.

That's when I started paying attention. And since then, the republican party has elevated the use of personal attacks in lieu of substance. It seems like they've become more dishonest, personal, and nastier with every campaign since.

I don't have anything to base it on but I believe it's possible that people are slowly catching on.

patteeu

10-28-2006, 08:57 AM

What does "exposing his true position" have to do with "flip-flop?" Did Republicans not understand nuance or did they think their voting populace was too stupid to get it?

I can only speak for myself, not for Republicans, but if I had to guess I would guess that they were trying to sway the opinions of a segment of the voting populace that is fairly uninformed (and therefore easily manipulated, if not stupid). Not diehard Republicans whose votes could be taken for granted, but the people who call themselves moderates whose votes were up for grabs.

patteeu

10-28-2006, 09:02 AM

ROFL

No matter how you couch it you will find a way to defend the President no matter how irrationale. Just like I said. You just chose a different tactic.

It may seem like that to you, but what's really going on is that I only choose to defend the President when his positions are defensible. If I don't think he can be defended (e.g. prescription drugs entitlement), I don't defend him.

Adept Havelock

10-28-2006, 11:14 AM

Making secret deals with Iranian terrorists during the hostage crisis rates as pretty sleazy.

So does trading arms with a known terrorist sponsoring state (cough...Iran-Contra...cough), but that doesn't keep 'em from trying to canonize St. Reagan. ;)

patteeu

10-28-2006, 11:50 AM

Making secret deals with Iranian terrorists during the hostage crisis rates as pretty sleazy. Can't think of anything the dems ever did like that.

I missed that one the first time. WTF are you talking about penchief? Surely not the long discredited Gary Sick allegation that Reagan convinced the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the election in 1980. I hope not because that would put you in the same territory as the "9/11 was an inside job" people.

If you are talking about the deal his administration made with the Iranians during the IranContra affair, I'd imagine that the hostages who were freed as a result don't think it was all that sleazy. If we want to find something to contrast that with though we can always look at the Clinton administration's approach to freeing the allegedly (but not actually) abused children from the Branch Davidian complex or how they rescued Elias Gonzalez from the prospects of a free life in Florida with his relatives and returned him to his father and their overlord, Fidel.

Adept Havelock

10-28-2006, 02:36 PM

If you are talking about the deal his administration made with the Iranians during the IranContra affair, I'd imagine that the hostages who were freed as a result don't think it was all that sleazy.

I imagine the hostages were ok with it.

How about you? Are you OK with arms trades and payoffs to known terror-sponsoring states in general, or do you just make an exception when it's done by a Republican icon like Reagan?

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-28-2006, 02:38 PM

So does trading arms with a known terrorist sponsoring state (cough...Iran-Contra...cough), but that doesn't keep 'em from trying to canonize St. Reagan. ;)

Don't forget about funding terrorists in Nicaragua by importing drugs onto our streets (while simultaneously fighting a "drug war" in the media).

Ugly Duck

10-28-2006, 02:51 PM

Did Republicans not understand nuance or did they think their voting populace was too stupid to get it?Bingo.

Baby Lee

10-28-2006, 02:51 PM

Making secret deals with Iranian terrorists during the hostage crisis rates as pretty sleazy. Can't think of anything the dems ever did like that.
Epiphany!!!

Wow!!

Everything penchief has EVER said just got a little more understandable.

patteeu

10-28-2006, 04:12 PM

I imagine the hostages were ok with it.

How about you? Are you OK with arms trades and payoffs to known terror-sponsoring states in general, or do you just make an exception when it's done by a Republican icon like Reagan?

I think it was the wrong thing to do, but I can understand why they did it. If the dem Congress hadn't tried to force us out of Nicaragua, there would have been less incentive behind that deal. I'd imagine that the folks who think Bush is creating terrorism with his confrontational approach probably thought Reagan's decision to negotiate the release of those hostages was top notch though. I presume that the rub for them is that the deal helped us block the Soviet's designs in Central America.

Adept Havelock

10-28-2006, 04:32 PM

I think it was the wrong thing to do, but I can understand why they did it.
Thanks for the clarification. :thumb:

I presume that the rub for them is that the deal helped us block the Soviet's designs in Central America.
Considering the Soviet Economy was already collapsing nicely by that point, I'm certain that had far more to do with undermining their goals in Central America than any deal that traded arms to a terror-sponsoring state.
Just ask Cuba and NK, who lost most of their economic support from the USSR around the same time. :D

penchief

10-28-2006, 06:54 PM

Epiphany!!!

Wow!!

Everything penchief has EVER said just got a little more understandable.

Yeah, right. Tell me you weren't sitting there on inaugural day saying to yourself "WTF?" Are you really one of those gullible people that believed that the Iranians released the hostages on that day because they feared Ronald Reagan? If so, why didn't they release them the day after election day? You aren't really that naive, are you? I'll assume that your were merely blinded by pride in your country.

Even though I was only 18 I could still think for myself. Add to that the Iran-Contra fiasco and it would take a blind person not to be able to see the connection.

Ever since Carter and Reagan, democrats have been framed by the establishment as pussies, liars, and moral perverts. At the same time, life in America has been transformed dramatically by a power-quo intent on taking back the humanitarian gains of the twentieth century.

Obviously, power owns. Therefore, the public is constantly under assault by a corporately owned media that opts to make mountains out molehills to their benefit while, at the same time, refusing to question the dishonesty of those same powerful forces that bribe them to influence the population against the people's own best interests.

StcChief

10-28-2006, 07:17 PM

Aren't the Dumocrats voting on Wed this year.

CRONUS

10-28-2006, 07:18 PM

It may seem like that to you, but what's really going on is that I only choose to defend the President when his positions are defensible. If I don't think he can be defended (e.g. prescription drugs entitlement), I don't defend him.

There sure are not many issues like that.

patteeu

10-28-2006, 09:00 PM

Considering the Soviet Economy was already collapsing nicely by that point, I'm certain that had far more to do with undermining their goals in Central America than any deal that traded arms to a terror-sponsoring state.
Just ask Cuba and NK, who lost most of their economic support from the USSR around the same time. :D

True enough, and if we had had confidence that that was the case at the time, we might not have put so much effort into defending Nicaragua from the Sandanistas and their Cuban and Soviet benefactors. At the time though, the true state of the Soviet Union was not so clear.

patteeu

10-28-2006, 09:14 PM

Yeah, right. Tell me you weren't sitting there on inaugural day saying to yourself "WTF?" Are you really one of those gullible people that believed that the Iranians released the hostages on that day because they feared Ronald Reagan? If so, why didn't they release them the day after election day? You aren't really that naive, are you? I'll assume that your were merely blinded by pride in your country.

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy)

Here is what the democrat-controlled House of Representatives investigation concluded about your theory in 1993:

[T]here is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign---or persons associated with the campaign---to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran.

The task force Chairman Lee Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence." The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke, who claimed to be a CIA agent.

There's more where that came from. The Village Voice, Newsweek, and the New Republic all investigated the charges and found them to be without merit. Newsweek determined that the conspiracy theory was being heavily pushed by the Lyndon LaRouche movement.

You're not in good company on this one, Penchief.

patteeu

10-28-2006, 09:15 PM

There sure are not many issues like that.

Right on, man. That's why he's such a good president.

Bowser

10-28-2006, 09:27 PM

Right on, man. That's why he's such a good president.

Just in time for a refill.....

Dave Lane

10-28-2006, 10:53 PM

Aren't the Dumocrats voting on Wed this year.

Is everyone from St. Loser retarded or just you and Booger? Inquiring minds need to know.

dave

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-28-2006, 11:06 PM

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy)

Here is what the democrat-controlled House of Representatives investigation concluded about your theory in 1993:

The task force Chairman Lee Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence." The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke, who claimed to be a CIA agent.

There's more where that came from. The Village Voice, Newsweek, and the New Republic all investigated the charges and found them to be without merit. Newsweek determined that the conspiracy theory was being heavily pushed by the Lyndon LaRouche movement.

You're not in good company on this one, Penchief.

Give me a break. Kevin Phillips, he of the Nixon White House even argued in "American Dynasty" that R's specifically negotiated w/ Iranians in Paris to make sure that the hostages would not be freed until after the election to ensure a Reagan victory.

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-28-2006, 11:08 PM

But then again, "The Warren Commission" was right on all of their conclusions, too.

CRONUS

10-29-2006, 12:19 AM

Just in time for a refill.....Yup

penchief

10-29-2006, 12:48 AM

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy)

Here is what the democrat-controlled House of Representatives investigation concluded about your theory in 1993:

The task force Chairman Lee Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence." The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke, who claimed to be a CIA agent.

There's more where that came from. The Village Voice, Newsweek, and the New Republic all investigated the charges and found them to be without merit. Newsweek determined that the conspiracy theory was being heavily pushed by the Lyndon LaRouche movement.

You're not in good company on this one, Penchief.

Like Wikipedia is the final say for somebody like you. Anybody can rewite history, including you.

patteeu

10-29-2006, 12:51 AM

Give me a break. Kevin Phillips, he of the Nixon White House even argued in "American Dynasty" that R's specifically negotiated w/ Iranians in Paris to make sure that the hostages would not be freed until after the election to ensure a Reagan victory.

Kevin Phillips versus the democrat-controlled House, Newsweek, the New Republic, and the Village Voice. :hmmm: