You've misunderstood me. I didn't mean that he was "gleeful" about "the way things turned out." I meant that he's only too happy to throw gasoline on the fire with these ridiculous, macho statements. Inexplicably, he doesn't expect that words such as these will effect the situation. Or if he does, he thinks the big stick will cow suicide bombers, which is inherently irrational.
Back to Moveon.org - you wrote: "I imagine they had quite a few vile anti-Bush ads submitted to the contest but no other ones (that I'm aware of) "slipped through their screening process".
Well, that's true. I'm still not clear on if they even had a filtering process (if they didn't, that would be akin to pure democracy...) or if it just slipped through their process (akin to a representative sort of democratic process...) but nevertheless, it made it to their website, along with hundreds of other ads for their members to vote on.. So what you're suggesting is that they suppressed some anti-Bush ads, but deliberately let this one through? I don't buy that.
You wrote: "I think you would find few in that country who believe it was worse than under Saddam, except maybe the privileged few who benefited from his tyranny."
This is the most tiresome utterence of coming from the right. It has absolutely nothing to do with our argument. Yes, the situation in Iraq is unstable, but what good does it do, what military tactic is predicated upon, taunting the enemy? It's just sheer arrogance and if any of my family members were over there, I'd be even more livid than I already am over this sophomoric statement.
No, they're just the ones who are skirting campaign finance reform by pouring billions into Kerry's campaign without being "affiliated" with Kerry's campaign. Incidentally, unless I missed it I haven't heard Kerry or the Democratic party condemning or even stating that they disagree with the ads, except to condemn BUSH's use of them.
Yes, perfectly appropriate if his intent was to show how angry and hateful McVeigh's rhetoric was-that was exactly the point of the Bush campaign's ad-to show how angry and hateful the other side's rhetoric has become. Don't see anything inappropriate in either scenario.
< Do you take responsibility for every thing every single republican says? Do you even agree with everything they say?>
(know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'm jumping in anyway, sorry) I'm not asking anyone to take responsibility for the ad, I'm only saying there was nothing wrong with Bush showing the colors of some of those who oppose him, whether they be official Dem party members or anyone else. I mean, if a group of Bush supporters decided to burn flags in protest, would it be out of line for the Bush campaign to show them doing so? Sorry that someone's vile Bush ad is being used against them, but guess what? It's their own stupid fault for putting it out there in the first place! Fair game, IMO.
< Inexplicably, he doesn't expect that words such as these will effect the situation. >
Much as I don't like to, I have to agree. He is certainly no stellar diplomat, I'll concede that point every time.
Well, kinda. What I'm saying is, I'm sure they got some truly wacko ads, like maybe some that put a price on Bush's head or showed him with his arm around OBL, but none of them "slipped through". My guess is they felt the Hitler reference was kind of symbolic and oblique enough that it wouldn't be too offensive (at least to their own target audience). I think it was a big misjudgement, not something that just escaped their notice.
It has to do with your comment about GWB gleefully making things worse since 2001. Some things are not so hot right now, to be sure, but there are a lot of things, in terms of both foreign and domestic policy, that ARE better. We just don't hear about those on the nightly news. And in fairness, a lot of things that are worse can not be atributed entirely to the Bush administration. I was actually thinking today that no matter who had been president right now, they would probably be having an equally tough time. The foreign and domestic issues facing the president in the last few years have really been of a gravity we haven't seen in decades, if ever. BC got a bit of a free ride in some ways, what with the dot com bubble and relative peacetime during his 8 years (at least in his mind, although we did suffer at least three major al quaeda attacks.) I doubt any president would be doing much better at the moment. But I digress.
Ok, then I suggest that the Kerry campain start associating the republicans with every vile thing extreme republicans have said. And while they're at it, they should make the point that McVeigh was a republican, and bring up the name of all other republican mass murders, and ..
You must be kidding me when you said that would be acceptable, right? That was just 'tongue in cheek'?
Don't you believe in 'fighting fair'? Let's say the republican candidate was black, you think it would be appropriate for the democrats to have an ad connecting the republican candidate with gang crime, because *some blacks* are involved in gang crime? Do you think all relatives of criminals are also guilty of the link? What's different with political association?
Honestly, I wasn't insinuating anything. But I was trying to make a point. I don't make generalizations about republicans or conservatives (canadian closest equivalent). I have lots of conservative friends. I've had many discussions with them about the Iraq war, but I still completely respect these people, and would not think to label them in any way. And I think they feel the same way about me.
I wouldn't be surprised if CNN through in the Republican and NRA line. I believe CNN is unworthy. I question their facts in general. We already know that CNN and the New York Times have been known to lie. Where did they get this information?
Pages
You've misunderstood me. I didn't mean that he was "gleeful" about "the way things turned out." I meant that he's only too happy to throw gasoline on the fire with these ridiculous, macho statements. Inexplicably, he doesn't expect that words such as these will effect the situation. Or if he does, he thinks the big stick will cow suicide bombers, which is inherently irrational.
Back to Moveon.org - you wrote: "I imagine they had quite a few vile anti-Bush ads submitted to the contest but no other ones (that I'm aware of) "slipped through their screening process".
Well, that's true. I'm still not clear on if they even had a filtering process (if they didn't, that would be akin to pure democracy...) or if it just slipped through their process (akin to a representative sort of democratic process...) but nevertheless, it made it to their website, along with hundreds of other ads for their members to vote on.. So what you're suggesting is that they suppressed some anti-Bush ads, but deliberately let this one through? I don't buy that.
You wrote: "I think you would find few in that country who believe it was worse than under Saddam, except maybe the privileged few who benefited from his tyranny."
This is the most tiresome utterence of coming from the right. It has absolutely nothing to do with our argument. Yes, the situation in Iraq is unstable, but what good does it do, what military tactic is predicated upon, taunting the enemy? It's just sheer arrogance and if any of my family members were over there, I'd be even more livid than I already am over this sophomoric statement.
No, they're just the ones who are skirting campaign finance reform by pouring billions into Kerry's campaign without being "affiliated" with Kerry's campaign. Incidentally, unless I missed it I haven't heard Kerry or the Democratic party condemning or even stating that they disagree with the ads, except to condemn BUSH's use of them.
Yes, perfectly appropriate if his intent was to show how angry and hateful McVeigh's rhetoric was-that was exactly the point of the Bush campaign's ad-to show how angry and hateful the other side's rhetoric has become. Don't see anything inappropriate in either scenario.
< Do you take responsibility for every thing every single republican says? Do you even agree with everything they say?>
(know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'm jumping in anyway, sorry) I'm not asking anyone to take responsibility for the ad, I'm only saying there was nothing wrong with Bush showing the colors of some of those who oppose him, whether they be official Dem party members or anyone else. I mean, if a group of Bush supporters decided to burn flags in protest, would it be out of line for the Bush campaign to show them doing so? Sorry that someone's vile Bush ad is being used against them, but guess what? It's their own stupid fault for putting it out there in the first place! Fair game, IMO.
LOL! No, you won't say it, you'll just insinuate it.
Much as I don't like to, I have to agree. He is certainly no stellar diplomat, I'll concede that point every time.
Well, kinda. What I'm saying is, I'm sure they got some truly wacko ads, like maybe some that put a price on Bush's head or showed him with his arm around OBL, but none of them "slipped through". My guess is they felt the Hitler reference was kind of symbolic and oblique enough that it wouldn't be too offensive (at least to their own target audience). I think it was a big misjudgement, not something that just escaped their notice.
It has to do with your comment about GWB gleefully making things worse since 2001. Some things are not so hot right now, to be sure, but there are a lot of things, in terms of both foreign and domestic policy, that ARE better. We just don't hear about those on the nightly news. And in fairness, a lot of things that are worse can not be atributed entirely to the Bush administration. I was actually thinking today that no matter who had been president right now, they would probably be having an equally tough time. The foreign and domestic issues facing the president in the last few years have really been of a gravity we haven't seen in decades, if ever. BC got a bit of a free ride in some ways, what with the dot com bubble and relative peacetime during his 8 years (at least in his mind, although we did suffer at least three major al quaeda attacks.) I doubt any president would be doing much better at the moment. But I digress.
Edited 7/1/2004 12:15 am ET ET by liveanew
You must be kidding me when you said that would be acceptable, right? That was just 'tongue in cheek'?
Don't you believe in 'fighting fair'? Let's say the republican candidate was black, you think it would be appropriate for the democrats to have an ad connecting the republican candidate with gang crime, because *some blacks* are involved in gang crime? Do you think all relatives of criminals are also guilty of the link? What's different with political association?
I believe... you believe anything that is printed that is anti-republican or anti NRA.
Pages