Oh yeah, he went there

[Guest thebigjig]

So, is anyone who thinks what Kerry said was awful actually going to respond to my post, or are we just going to hit each other with our dicks all day?

Politicizing the tragedy is wrong. Kerry SHOULD have said "I'm not going to reply to that question" --- but no, taking a shot at the President is more important.

-=Mike

So basically... politicizing 9/11 and taking cheap shots at your opposition is ONLY okay when Bush does it

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Politicizing the tragedy is wrong. Kerry SHOULD have said "I'm not going to reply to that question" --- but no, taking a shot at the President is more important.

-=Mike

I don't think that was a real option. Kerry doesn't answer the question, and there's another sliver for the "Kerry's weak on defense" or "Kerry doesn't know how to handle terrorism" line. Instead he did the thing that neither harms him nor attacks the president.

[Guest thebigjig]

You guys should have a debate, all you need is a moderator who would pick out topics concerning the upcoming presidential election, you would then have a set time limit and word limit to explain your opinion. Only thing is, referencing Monkey Island or using the word twat would be frowned upon.

You could call it Debate 04: A good lie is built on a foundation of trust, Smartmarks challenge your notion of the truth.

Okay, that was gay, but still, have at it.

Referencing Monkey Island should ALWAYS be acceptable

[Guest MikeSC]

Politicizing the tragedy is wrong. Kerry SHOULD have said "I'm not going to reply to that question" --- but no, taking a shot at the President is more important.

                -=Mike

I don't think that was a real option. Kerry doesn't answer the question, and there's another sliver for the "Kerry's weak on defense" or "Kerry doesn't know how to handle terrorism" line. Instead he did the thing that neither harms him nor attacks the president.

No, there isn't. There's a "Why the fuck is the media politicizing 9/11?" and a mention of how sad it is that Michael Moore has so much influence --- but not an inch of criticism of Kerry.

-=Mike

[Guest SteveyP93]

Bye-bye, Bush. Bye-bye.

[NoCalMike 0]

Politicizing the tragedy is wrong. Kerry SHOULD have said "I'm not going to reply to that question" --- but no, taking a shot at the President is more important.

                 -=Mike

I don't think that was a real option. Kerry doesn't answer the question, and there's another sliver for the "Kerry's weak on defense" or "Kerry doesn't know how to handle terrorism" line. Instead he did the thing that neither harms him nor attacks the president.

No, there isn't. There's a "Why the fuck is the media politicizing 9/11?" and a mention of how sad it is that Michael Moore has so much influence --- but not an inch of criticism of Kerry.

-=Mike

umm, he didn't take a shot at the president. He just answered a question that he was asked. I know being a Bush supporter and all, you are pretty used to your leader not answering questions, but that doesn't mean others can't.

[Guest MikeSC]

Politicizing the tragedy is wrong. Kerry SHOULD have said "I'm not going to reply to that question" --- but no, taking a shot at the President is more important.

                -=Mike

I don't think that was a real option. Kerry doesn't answer the question, and there's another sliver for the "Kerry's weak on defense" or "Kerry doesn't know how to handle terrorism" line. Instead he did the thing that neither harms him nor attacks the president.

No, there isn't. There's a "Why the fuck is the media politicizing 9/11?" and a mention of how sad it is that Michael Moore has so much influence --- but not an inch of criticism of Kerry.

-=Mike

umm, he didn't take a shot at the president. He just answered a question that he was asked. I know being a Bush supporter and all, you are pretty used to your leader not answering questions, but that doesn't mean others can't.

I know that anything anti-Bush is peachy keen for you --- but flat-out LYING about what you'd do is just sad. Especially when it's done solely to slam Bush.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Politicizing the tragedy is wrong. Kerry SHOULD have said "I'm not going to reply to that question" --- but no, taking a shot at the President is more important.

                 -=Mike

I don't think that was a real option. Kerry doesn't answer the question, and there's another sliver for the "Kerry's weak on defense" or "Kerry doesn't know how to handle terrorism" line. Instead he did the thing that neither harms him nor attacks the president.

No, there isn't. There's a "Why the fuck is the media politicizing 9/11?" and a mention of how sad it is that Michael Moore has so much influence --- but not an inch of criticism of Kerry.

-=Mike

umm, he didn't take a shot at the president. He just answered a question that he was asked. I know being a Bush supporter and all, you are pretty used to your leader not answering questions, but that doesn't mean others can't.

I know that anything anti-Bush is peachy keen for you --- but flat-out LYING about what you'd do is just sad. Especially when it's done solely to slam Bush.

-=Mike

How exactly do you LIE about a hypothetical situation that never existed in the first place?

[Guest thebigjig]

I know that anything anti-Bush is peachy keen for you

 

Just curious... I've defended Bush on several occassions... but I dont ever recall you defending Kerry on anything, ever...

 

is that saying something??

 

but flat-out LYING about what you'd do is just sad. Especially when it's done solely to slam Bush.

 

This holier than thou attitude is really starting to get ridiculous

 

And how the fuck do you know that he was "lying" about what he would do in the same situation? I don't believe you can be ignorant and omniscient at the same time

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

umm, he didn't take a shot at the president.  He just answered a question that he was asked.  I know being a Bush supporter and all, you are pretty used to your leader not answering questions, but that doesn't mean others can't.

I know that anything anti-Bush is peachy keen for you --- but flat-out LYING about what you'd do is just sad. Especially when it's done solely to slam Bush.

-=Mike

"Flat-out lying"? Mike, where are you taking this? A hypothetical reaction to a situation that never happened is not a lie. John Kerry has never been in a classroom as President of the United States addressing children at the moment of a terrorist action on US soil; there is no basis for calling his claim a lie. You have no better a frame of reference to his assertion than he does.

 

Edit: Very amused that NoCal posted just about the exact same thing. Heh.

[treble 0]

Alright, Mike and Jig, stop with the stupid flaming. There's a difference between 'heated discussion' and outright flaming and it's gone pass that line.

 

That being said, this is rather lame. It would almost make you think that Kerry actually wants to win this election.

[Guest MikeSC]

"Flat-out lying"? Mike, where are you taking this? A hypothetical reaction to a situation that never happened is not a lie. John Kerry has never been in a classroom as President of the United States addressing children at the moment of a terrorist action on US soil; there is no basis for calling his claim a lie. You have no better a frame of reference to his assertion than he does.

 

Edit: Very amused that NoCal posted just about the exact same thing. Heh.

Shall I, again, mention PRECISELY what Kerry did on 9/11? He's said, EXACTLY, what he did --- you know, back before he decided that this would be a nice little attack to make.

[Guest thebigjig]

Alright, Mike and Jig, stop with the stupid flaming. There's a difference between 'heated discussion' and outright flaming and it's gone pass that line.

*looks at feet*

 

he started it...

[treble 0]

"Flat-out lying"?  Mike, where are you taking this?  A hypothetical reaction to a situation that never happened is not a lie.  John Kerry has never been in a classroom as President of the United States addressing children at the moment of a terrorist action on US soil; there is no basis for calling his claim a lie.  You have no better a frame of reference to his assertion than he does.

 

Edit: Very amused that NoCal posted just about the exact same thing.  Heh.

Shall I, again, mention PRECISELY what Kerry did on 9/11? He's said, EXACTLY, what he did --- you know, back before he decided that this would be a nice little attack to make.

The thing is, that's what he did as a Senator. This 'attack' on Bush is just him saying that he wouldn't have stayed in the classroom. You're blowing this way out of proportion.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

"Flat-out lying"?  Mike, where are you taking this?  A hypothetical reaction to a situation that never happened is not a lie.  John Kerry has never been in a classroom as President of the United States addressing children at the moment of a terrorist action on US soil; there is no basis for calling his claim a lie.  You have no better a frame of reference to his assertion than he does.

 

Edit: Very amused that NoCal posted just about the exact same thing.  Heh.

Shall I, again, mention PRECISELY what Kerry did on 9/11? He's said, EXACTLY, what he did --- you know, back before he decided that this would be a nice little attack to make.

Mike, of course I read about Kerry's reaction. As has been said earlier in this thread, it doesn't correlate. Kerry was not President; he was not in charge of the federal government and the United States of America. It's entirely different. The situation remains hypothetical. That change of role is an extremely significant variable.

 

To hold every elected official to the same standard of job-specific obligations as the country's chief executive is foolish.

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, about the vets "rescinding" their criticism, a few things:

 

First off, please note a name:

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff  |  August 6, 2004

Care to guess the name of the person who is writing the forward for the official campaign book for the Edwards/Kerry campaign?

 

And the vet, apparently, disagrees (from the very conservative humaneventsonline.com:

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is in response to an article appearing in the morning edition of the Boston Globe (“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry”) which implies that one Vietnam Veteran wishes to retract an affidavit he signed regarding John Kerry’s actions during and after Kerry’s time in Vietnam. The signed affidavit can be seen below.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit [see below] in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

 

“Additional documentation will follow. “The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

 

“Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam.”

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html

 

It was a stupid ad. Incredibly stupid and highly unlikely to do ANY good for the President. Kerry's service is irrelevant. I do not even REMOTELY care if he "deserved" his accolades.

 

However, "journalists" covering a candidate shouldn't be contributing to the OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN BOOKS. Looks REAL bad.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

"Flat-out lying"?  Mike, where are you taking this?  A hypothetical reaction to a situation that never happened is not a lie.  John Kerry has never been in a classroom as President of the United States addressing children at the moment of a terrorist action on US soil; there is no basis for calling his claim a lie.  You have no better a frame of reference to his assertion than he does.

 

Edit: Very amused that NoCal posted just about the exact same thing.  Heh.

Shall I, again, mention PRECISELY what Kerry did on 9/11? He's said, EXACTLY, what he did --- you know, back before he decided that this would be a nice little attack to make.

Mike, of course I read about Kerry's reaction. As has been said earlier in this thread, it doesn't correlate. Kerry was not President; he was not in charge of the federal government and the United States of America. It's entirely different. The situation remains hypothetical. That change of role is an extremely significant variable.

 

To hold every elected official to the same standard of job-specific obligations as the country's chief executive is foolish.

To assume that a person will act differently in a situation based on their job title is equally foolish.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Personally I'm bored of the whole 'seven minutes in the classroom shame on you Mr. Bush!' bit. It must have been worth Bill Owens' time just so Maher and Moore (who might as well announce that they're conjoined twins) could corner him on it last week.

 

Ah one more example of the so-called People's Party proving to be a pile of crap, 'We're not the Republicans, we run a clean campaign dammit!'

 

EEEEEEEEEEE-yeah......................

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

To assume that a person will act differently in a situation based on their job title is equally foolish.

            -=Mike

It's not a question of title - it's one of responsibility. In a situation of national crisis, the leader of the free world has much greater individual responsibility than any member of his 100-person upper legislature and a different standard of conduct would be expected.

 

Mind you, I have no problem with how Bush reacted.

[Guest MikeSC]

To assume that a person will act differently in a situation based on their job title is equally foolish.

            -=Mike

It's not a question of title - it's one of responsibility. In a situation of national crisis, the leader of the free world has much greater individual responsibility than any member of his 100-person upper legislature and a different standard of conduct would be expected.

 

Mind you, I have no problem with how Bush reacted.

A different standard might be expected --- but a different outcome based on job titles seems far-fetched. People are who they are. Their job title isn't going to change things. A dishonest man who gets ordained as a priest will still be a dishonest man.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

To assume that a person will act differently in a situation based on their job title is equally foolish.

            -=Mike

It's not a question of title - it's one of responsibility. In a situation of national crisis, the leader of the free world has much greater individual responsibility than any member of his 100-person upper legislature and a different standard of conduct would be expected.

 

Mind you, I have no problem with how Bush reacted.

A different standard might be expected --- but a different outcome based on job titles seems far-fetched. People are who they are. Their job title isn't going to change things. A dishonest man who gets ordained as a priest will still be a dishonest man.

-=Mike

what about one that suddenly "finds christ" and is born again right before an election campaign?

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

A different standard might be expected --- but a different outcome based on job titles seems far-fetched. People are who they are. Their job title isn't going to change things. A dishonest man who gets ordained as a priest will still be a dishonest man.

-=Mike

You're just being ridiculous. If one of Bill Gates's top managers tenders his resignation, Johnny Mid-Level Programmer isn't going to start thinking about possible replacements.

 

While not exactly the same set of circumstances, the leader of the country has a different set of responsibilties/expectations during a time of attack than a regular senator.

 

I could say I'd possibly handle things differently than Bush did, when in fact I was sitting at my desk at work - that doesn't make me a liar. The fact that they had different jobs/duties is abolutely a key variable in the equation.

[Guest MikeSC]

A different standard might be expected --- but a different outcome based on job titles seems far-fetched. People are who they are. Their job title isn't going to change things. A dishonest man who gets ordained as a priest will still be a dishonest man.

-=Mike

You're just being ridiculous. If one of Bill Gates's top managers tenders his resignation, Johnny Mid-Level Programmer isn't going to start thinking about possible replacements.

 

While not exactly the same set of circumstances, the leader of the country has a different set of responsibilties/expectations during a time of attack than a regular senator.

 

I could say I'd possibly handle things differently than Bush did, when in fact I was sitting at my desk at work - that doesn't make me a liar. The fact that they had different jobs/duties is abolutely a key variable in the equation.

Let's say a bomb is headed towards MS HQ. Let's say Johnny Mid-Level Programmer hides and begs for mercy. Would you expect him to NOT do so if he was the CEO of the company?

 

You, again, are what you are. If you are too dazed to act as a Senator, I see no reason to suspect that being President will be any different.

-=Mike

[BX 0]

You'd think that, once in a while... you would actually WANT to surprise us by at least appearing to know what you're talking about

 

Thats asking too much though I suppose

jig, when an fucking moron thinks you don't know what you're talking about, you're doing something right. Thanks. Your ignorance can only inspire the rest of us.

-=Mike

how appropriate, you fight like a cow

HA. That was hilarious.

[Guest thebigjig]

You'd think that, once in a while... you would actually WANT to surprise us by at least appearing to know what you're talking about

 

Thats asking too much though I suppose

jig, when an fucking moron thinks you don't know what you're talking about, you're doing something right. Thanks. Your ignorance can only inspire the rest of us.

-=Mike

how appropriate, you fight like a cow

HA. That was hilarious.

I havent played MI in years...

 

infact, when I get home today, that's what I'm gonna do

 

in honor of my new best friend, Mike

[Justice 0]

It's a MONKEY ISLAND reference you ridiculous self righteous ass

It was a SHITTY reference regardless, you unoriginal twatrock.

-=Mike

Oh FUCK YOU, Mike. Monkey Island references are fucking GOLD, especially this case. You should try the God damn game before dissing it.

 

A Devoted MI Fan.

[BX 0]

BTW, about the vets "rescinding" their criticism, a few things:

 

First off, please note a name:

Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff  |  August 6, 2004

Care to guess the name of the person who is writing the forward for the official campaign book for the Edwards/Kerry campaign?

From this little nugget of shit, I can assume that you're implying that because the reporter is a visible supporter of John Kerry, that his report is somewhat biased.

 

Let me ask you Mike, what does this matter? What makes you think that this story would have been any different had it been written by anyone else at the Globe?

 

Did Kranish choke the veteran until he recanted his words against Kerry? Did he lock him in a hole in the ground until he got the story he wanted to hear?

 

What's your point?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Let's say a bomb is headed towards MS HQ. Let's say Johnny Mid-Level Programmer hides and begs for mercy. Would you expect him to NOT do so if he was the CEO of the company?

 

You, again, are what you are. If you are too dazed to act as a Senator, I see no reason to suspect that being President will be any different.

-=Mike

Mike, here's how I'm interpreting your perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, cause I don't want to misrepresent you:

 

Environment and situation - such as being the head of a company vs. a low-level employee, or a senator vs. a chief executive - have no effect on how an individual acts, reacts, and makes decisions.

[Justice 0]

Okay, my entire look at the thing:

 

I think the most important line Kerry said is that "He couldn't think". It shows that he was sufficiently dazed from the sheer incredulity of the entire event. I doubt this goes down any more when you are in charge of the country under attack. I'm sure this probably INCREASES the amount of fogginess because not only is this horrific event going on, but YOU are the person who will be in charge of responding to it. That would sufficiently daze me, and I can completely understand. Do I think that Kerry's bullshitting? A bit; he's trying to use a minor event to make Bush seem unqualified by telling us how he would theoretically act. I really doubt he would do that, in all honesty; an event of that magnitude is such a system shock that I doubt he'd be doing anything but sitting and thinking for a few minutes on exactly what you want to do. Does this change my opinion of Kerry? Not really, no. Does it affect my opinion of Bush? No, not really either.

[NoCalMike 0]

Okay, my entire look at the thing:

 

I think the most important line Kerry said is that "He couldn't think". It shows that he was sufficiently dazed from the sheer incredulity of the entire event. I doubt this goes down any more when you are in charge of the country under attack. I'm sure this probably INCREASES the amount of fogginess because not only is this horrific event going on, but YOU are the person who will be in charge of responding to it. That would sufficiently daze me, and I can completely understand. Do I think that Kerry's bullshitting? A bit; he's trying to use a minor event to make Bush seem unqualified by telling us how he would theoretically act. I really doubt he would do that, in all honesty; an event of that magnitude is such a system shock that I doubt he'd be doing anything but sitting and thinking for a few minutes on exactly what you want to do. Does this change my opinion of Kerry? Not really, no. Does it affect my opinion of Bush? No, not really either.

Well then one could argue that there is a major difference between watching coverage on tv of the attacks, and having someone whipser into yor ear, "america is under attack" and not having a clue anything else about.