PDA

View Full Version : Elections VoteVets body slam Santorum in viral ad


Taco John
02-17-2012, 02:49 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SRNxIqrQ-G8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 02:53 PM
Cool!

DementedLogic
02-17-2012, 02:58 PM
That's going to be a pretty effective ad.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 03:01 PM
I've heard he cares and would love to start WWIII, he says the Dakota's are going to be invaded by terrorists. He would much prefer to send our boys off to war in their underwear.

dirk digler
02-17-2012, 03:04 PM
I like that ad. They should do one with Mittens scouring off to Europe with his tails between his pussy lips

Ugly Duck
02-17-2012, 04:19 PM
"Rick Santorum should shut his F%$k!n mouth" - Lewis Black

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yAyt9oDZkx4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yAyt9oDZkx4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

fan4ever
02-19-2012, 06:34 PM
I don't know what particular bill they're talking about here, but this is one of the oldest political stunts in the world; politicians often vote against bills that seem to be a good idea because of the pork attached to them or some other element of the bill that makes it a bad idea, and then they get cherry-picked by their enemies. There's likely more to this story than Santorum wanting our troops to die.

Iowanian
02-19-2012, 06:55 PM
I like that ad. They should do one with Mittens scouring off to Europe with his tails between his pussy lips

or of obama at his school in Indonesia learning about the great satan.

go bowe
02-19-2012, 07:41 PM
or of obama at his school in Indonesia learning about the great satan.

actually, we have been the great satan to iran and more recent terrorists supported by iran, but not so much for indonesia some 40 years ago...

besides that whole indonesian school thing is pure propaganda, everybody knows he was really training at bin laden's camps in afghanistan...

or was it kenya?

or somalia?

it's hard to keep up...

NewChief
02-19-2012, 08:20 PM
Hold on: the Ron Paul crew is attacking Santorum for cutting defense spending that would aid troops in a war they don't support in the first place?

Irony?

But by all mean: go for it. My mom while visiting this weekend said, "My man Santorum is starting to show well," and it was all I could do to look at her for the rest of the weekend. I hate the fucker with a purple passion, but this seems a strange angle of attack.

go bowe
02-19-2012, 09:57 PM
show well?

mom, c'mon...

the guy is named after buttfoam...

Taco John
02-19-2012, 10:30 PM
Hold on: the Ron Paul crew is attacking Santorum for cutting defense spending that would aid troops in a war they don't support in the first place?

Irony?

But by all mean: go for it. My mom while visiting this weekend said, "My man Santorum is starting to show well," and it was all I could do to look at her for the rest of the weekend. I hate the ****er with a purple passion, but this seems a strange angle of attack.


Actually, this isn't Paul supported at all. Also, there is no irony here at all.

NewChief
02-19-2012, 10:36 PM
Actually, this isn't Paul supported at all. Also, there is no irony here at all.

You and BEP both love it, and you all are our resident Paul pushers. I wasn't referring to the Paul campaign, but rather to your implied endorsement of this attack. As I said, go for it. I'd probably vote Paul over Obama if he got the nomination just to light a freaking fuse in DC, but the OP just struck me as strange.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2012, 10:50 PM
Hold on: the Ron Paul crew is attacking Santorum for cutting defense spending that would aid troops in a war they don't support in the first place?

Irony?



There's no irony. Your reasoning is simply illogical. You have some confusion on Paul's stand leading you to mix two things that aren't similar, the same or in the same category of thing—which are part of logic.

Think about it: If Paul doesn't send these guys into any military action as a police action, then they don't need some stinkin' vest. Needing the vest is dependent on the first action, which Paul wouldn't fund ( unless true defense ).

This is kinda like Cavuto claiming Paul to be inconsistent about earmarks when Paul doesn't ever vote for the spending.

Taco John
02-19-2012, 11:22 PM
You and BEP both love it, and you all are our resident Paul pushers. I wasn't referring to the Paul campaign, but rather to your implied endorsement of this attack. As I said, go for it. I'd probably vote Paul over Obama if he got the nomination just to light a freaking fuse in DC, but the OP just struck me as strange.


I think Rick Santorum is a douche if he voted for the war, but voted against the equipment needed to fight the war. I'm not sure where you're manufacturing the irony for this, but whatever.

mikey23545
02-20-2012, 08:05 AM
I don't know what particular bill they're talking about here, but this is one of the oldest political stunts in the world; politicians often vote against bills that seem to be a good idea because of the pork attached to them or some other element of the bill that makes it a bad idea, and then they get cherry-picked by their enemies. There's likely more to this story than Santorum wanting our troops to die.

The vote these retards are talking about is about a bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. During the debate on the floor there was never any mention of body armor; Landrieu took the Senate floor to give examples of the kinds of equipment that might be purchased with this money, she cited "skin reduction exposure paste," "mobile chemical agent detectors," and "collective shelters" for chemical attacks – but didn't once mention buying body armor. Neither did any other senator. Her amendment was killed by a mostly party-line vote.

Any shortage of body armor in Iraq has been shown to be due to the inability of contractors to manufacture the vests fast enough to meet demand; there was never a shortage of money for the vests.

Santorum voted for 11 other bills during this time to purchase body armor.

VoteVets is a liberal group, and this lie has been used against several different Republican, mostly by MoveOn.org. A slam dunk shredding of this charge can be found here:

http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/45496,-1.php

alnorth
02-20-2012, 08:45 AM
Factcheck.org shot down these votevet ads almost 6 years ago.

False Claims About Body Armor (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006/false_claims_about_body_armor.html)

I'm not a fan of Santorum, but there are plenty of real, legitimate reasons to vote against him.

InChiefsHell
02-20-2012, 08:48 AM
Sooo...people think Rick Santorum wants our troops to die?

VoteVets can go fuck themselves. What a dishonest ad.

banyon
02-20-2012, 08:49 AM
The vote these retards are talking about is about a bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. During the debate on the floor there was never any mention of body armor; Landrieu took the Senate floor to give examples of the kinds of equipment that might be purchased with this money, she cited "skin reduction exposure paste," "mobile chemical agent detectors," and "collective shelters" for chemical attacks – but didn't once mention buying body armor. Neither did any other senator. Her amendment was killed by a mostly party-line vote.

Any shortage of body armor in Iraq has been shown to be due to the inability of contractors to manufacture the vests fast enough to meet demand; there was never a shortage of money for the vests.

Santorum voted for 11 other bills during this time to purchase body armor.

VoteVets is a liberal group, and this lie has been used against several different Republican, mostly by MoveOn.org. A slam dunk shredding of this charge can be found here:

http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/45496,-1.php

:hmmm: This seems sketchy too. She "didn't once mention body armor", but she referred to "force protection to minimize casualties" and "bullet proof inserts".

AP advanced FactCheck.org's misleading criticism of Vote Vets ad targeting
September 22, 2006 7:27 pm ET

SUMMARY: The Associated Press' Bob Lewis advanced FactCheck.org's misleading analysis of a recent ad criticizing Sen. George Allen on his 2003 vote against an amendment that would have increased National Guard funding for modern body armor. Lewis cast doubt over the ad's veracity by repeating the misleading claim that body armor was "never mentioned" in the floor speech introducing the measure.



In a September 21 article on several television advertisements being run in the Virginia Senate race, Associated Press political writer Bob Lewis advanced FactCheck.org's misleading analysis of a recent ad criticizing Sen. George F. Allen (R-VA). FactCheck argued that the ad's central assertion -- that Allen voted against an April 2003 Democratic amendment that would have increased U.S. National Guard funding for modern body armor -- was "false" because the amendment's sponsor, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), did not specifically cite "body armor" as a priority in her floor statement on the legislation. But FactCheck ignored the fact that Landrieu repeatedly stated on the floor that the bill would ensure that National Guard soldiers had "helmets" and other "force protection" equipment intended to "minimize causalities," as Media Matters for America noted. While Lewis did not join FactCheck in asserting that the ad was false, he did cast doubt over its veracity by repeating the misleading claim that Landrieu "never mentioned body armor" on the Senate floor. Moreover, Lewis -- like FactCheck -- entirely left out any mention of Allen's opposition to an October 2003 amendment offered by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), which would have provided additional funding explicitly for body armor.

From the September 21 AP article, which ran on the website of the Daily Press in Newport News, Virginia:

The VoteVets.org ad bases its allegation that Allen denied troops lifesaving body armor on an April 2, 2003, vote Allen cast to defeat Sen. Mary Landreiu's [sic] amendment to boost funding for unspecified National Guard and Reserve equipment. In her floor speech, she never mentioned body armor. The amendment died on a party-line vote, with Allen and Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., both voting against it.

Lewis's assertions that Landrieu "never mentioned body armor" in her floor statements and that her amendment simply concerned funding for "unspecified National Guard and Reserve equipment" appear to have been taken from FactCheck's September 20 post -- which Lewis cited elsewhere in the article -- criticizing the Vote Vets ad. But these claims ignore Landrieu's press release stating that the $1 billion measure included funding for bulletproof vests and her statements on the Senate floor that the bill would provide Guard troops with "helmets" and "force protection" equipment:

In her March 20, 2003, floor statement introducing the amendment, Landrieu repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. government was "underfunding our Guard and Reserve" and expressed shock at "the lack of equipment, the lack of money in this budget to fund their current operations." She added: "For too long, the Guard and Reserve have received hand-me-downs from the Active component. ... Let's give them their rifles, their helmets, and their tactical equipment so we can, as we know we will, win this war."
In a March 26, 2003, press release, Landrieu further explained that the bill "targets shortfalls identified by the National Guard and Reserve in their Unfunded Requirement lists," including the "shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests."
In her April 2, 2003, floor statement on the amendment, Landrieu said: "When we talk about force protection and minimizing casualties, you don't have to be an expert in warfare to understand one of the ways you can minimize casualties is to give your Guard and Reserve the best training and the best equipment."

Lewis went on to dismiss a Vote Vets press release noting that Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, had in September 2003 expressed the need for the body armor funding included in the $87 billion emergency supplemental bill before Congress. Lewis wrote that while Abizaid's testimony "verifies the need, it came months after Allen cast his vote." But Lewis ignored the fact that several weeks after Abizaid's remarks, Allen voted against Dodd's amendment to further boost funding for body armor, as Media Matters noted in response to FactCheck's false assertion that Allen never opposed body armor for the troops:

Beyond its claims about the Landrieu amendment, FactCheck's broad assertion that "Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor" is simply false. Indeed, on October 2, 2003, Allen voted against a Democratic amendment to the $87 billion emergency supplemental bill to increase the amount of funding devoted to body armor and battlefield clearance to ensure that both needs were met. The Dodd amendment would have added $322 million to the $300 million the Senate Appropriations Committee had already attached to the underlying bill for small arms protection inserts (SAPI) body armor and battlefield cleanup. Dodd repeatedly made clear in his October 2, 2003, floor statement that his intent in offering the amendment was to make certain that U.S. forces in Iraq were provided adequate body armor, which he described as a "top priorit[y]."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200609220022

<object id='cspan-video-player' classid='clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000' codebase='http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0' align='middle' height='500' width='410'><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='true'/><param name='movie' value='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=175592-1'/><param name='quality' value='high'/><param name='bgcolor' value='#ffffff'/><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'/><param name='flashvars' value='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=122917&style=full'/><embed name='cspan-video-player' src='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=175592-1' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=122917&style=full' align='middle' height='500' width='410'></embed></object>

She talks at 12:07 into this video

It's very clear the amendment was about supplies for the troops.

alnorth
02-20-2012, 08:49 AM
I don't know what particular bill they're talking about here, but this is one of the oldest political stunts in the world; politicians often vote against bills that seem to be a good idea because of the pork attached to them or some other element of the bill that makes it a bad idea, and then they get cherry-picked by their enemies. There's likely more to this story than Santorum wanting our troops to die.

In this case, it was a party-line vote against an amendment, not the bill itself. If it really was a "hey, we need to pay for body armor" amendment, then it might be difficult to explain a vote against it, even if you plan to vote against the larger bill.

This amendment was a vague unexplained $1B increase in national guard funding. After it was voted down, the Dems quickly and sneakily revised history by saying the money would have gone to body armor... even though there was plenty of money for body armor already and the shortage in Iraq was due to problems with suppliers not able to meet demand and the Pentagon fouling up the logistics of shipping them over. More money would not have made a difference.

alnorth
02-20-2012, 08:52 AM
This debunking of factcheck.org, was itself debunked.

:hmmm: This seems sketchy too. She "didn't once mention body armor", but she referred to "force protection to minimize casualties" and "bullet proof inserts".

It is true that in a press release Landrieu quoted the Marine Corps Reserve as saying it needed more "bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests" before another wave of reservists went to Iraq, among many other items. But neither Landrieu nor any other senator mentioned that during debate.

Never mind the fact that money was never an issue with getting body armor, no one seems to care about silly little details like that.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-20-2012, 08:57 AM
This debunking of factcheck.org, was itself debunked.





Never mind the fact that money was never an issue with getting body armor, no one seems to care about silly little details like that.

So it's he said-she said, rinse and repeat.

banyon
02-20-2012, 09:00 AM
So it's he said-she said, rinse and repeat.

Actually no. It was captured on live video as to what was said.

banyon
02-20-2012, 09:01 AM
This debunking of factcheck.org, was itself debunked.





Never mind the fact that money was never an issue with getting body armor, no one seems to care about silly little details like that.

On the video she is clearly talking about helmets, chem suits, other supplies. She mentions the funding issues.

alnorth
02-20-2012, 09:04 AM
On the video she is clearly talking about helmets, chem suits, other supplies. She mentions the funding issues.

She was flat-out wrong. There was no funding issue. There was a supply/demand and logistics issue, on its way to being resolved, and throwing more money at it would not have done anything.

Besides, it does not matter what she said or did not say on the floor of the senate, all that matters is the amendment, and it was just a blanket funding increase.

She could have said on the floor of the Senate that it would pay for military moon bases, and it wouldn't be fair to criticize Dems who voted for it for "wasting money on military moon bases".

alnorth
02-20-2012, 09:07 AM
General rule of thumb in politics:

If an argument can be basically boiled down to "the other guy is a drooling cross-eyed retard" or "the other guy is almost as evil as Hitler", then the argument is probably not true. This argument (Santorum wants to start WW3 in Iran, but the thought of troops getting shot up without body armor excites him) basically boils down to "Santorum is almost as evil as Hitler". Therefore, it is probably wrong.

banyon
02-20-2012, 09:40 AM
General rule of thumb in politics:

If an argument can be basically boiled down to "the other guy is a drooling cross-eyed retard" or "the other guy is almost as evil as Hitler", then the argument is probably not true. This argument (Santorum wants to start WW3 in Iran, but the thought of troops getting shot up without body armor excites him) basically boils down to "Santorum is almost as evil as Hitler". Therefore, it is probably wrong.

I agree that it's a distortion, but the factcheck article probably overreached a bit as well.

mikey23545
02-20-2012, 12:37 PM
I agree that it's a distortion, but I'm still going to believe it.

FYP.

Chiefshrink
02-20-2012, 03:33 PM
Sooo...people think Rick Santorum wants our troops to die?

VoteVets can go **** themselves. What a dishonest ad.

This !! The guns of the RINOs and Marxists are pointed and firing on Santorum. Santorum will fired on big time this week and what will be interesting is his response.

Chiefshrink
02-20-2012, 03:36 PM
General rule of thumb in politics:

It's an election year and anything goes especially if you're a Marxist Dem/RINO:rolleyes: