Bush: A new negativity

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I'd be curious to see what CADkindaGUY thinks about all this kerry-bashing. I know he isn't a fan of bashing, but maybe that's just a double-standard that is only used against Kerry?

You've asked this same question of CAD a number of times. Yet, each time he ignores you. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were put on the don't give him the stisfaction list. I'm proud to say I'm a founding member.

Actually, it gets to be kind of comical after a while.

CAD - "Kerry flip-flops"
Gaard - "Does Bush flip-flop?"
CAD - "Yes, the right has a problem with it."
Gaard - "That's not what I asked. Does Bush flip-flop?"
CAD - "I'm not going to give you the satisfaction."


CAD - "I'm against Bush-bashing."
Infohawk - "Are you against Kerry-bashing as well, or just Bush-bashing?"
CAD - no reply


CAD - "It's important to keep things in context."
heartsurgeon - an out-of-context Kerry quote (again)
Gaard - "Hey CAD, will you explain to heartsurgeon the importance of 'context'?"
CAD - no reply

He hasn't used the "not giving you the satisfaction" line. I often get, "I've already been over this" -- as in a different thread with someone else ages ago. I guess he only explained his support for the war once and if anyone missed it the problem is with them.

On the other hand, he did mention not wanting to give me something I could use against him. He mentioned you. I guess he considers it unfair if you point out his inconsistencies. Instead of letting his ideas get challegenged, he likes to keep his head in the sand. Anyway, from the post, it sounded like he feared you.

Anyway, I will keep reminding him of his "Bush-bashing" argument until he either addresses it head on (the farthest I've gotten him to go is: "It's different") or he stops mentioning so-called Bush-bashing.

 

[bossanov]

So Bush want us to remember that Kerry supported a Gas Tax 10 years ago.

What was Bush doing 10 years ago?

Maybe he was too drunk to remember.

B.

 

[Gaard]

On the other hand, he did mention not wanting to give me something I could use against him.

LOL You got that too? Sheesh, talk about paranoid. :laugh:

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: bossanov
So Bush want us to remember that Kerry supported a Gas Tax 10 years ago.

What was Bush doing 10 years ago?

Maybe he was too drunk to remember.

B.

Wow with that kind of attack you could be a Republican Ad advisor

 

[EXman]

damn bud you have a weak tummy it will get worse. Crap President Bush Hammered McCain to Death... And Sen. McCain is %100 more a Man and a vet than Kerry.

Bush needs to Drop Dick and some John McCain on that ticket.

 

[glugglug]

It seems we've never before seen the likes of low road campaining we are fom Bush and Co

Negative campaining and mudslinging..... THAT has NEVER happened before! :disgust:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I'd be curious to see what CADkindaGUY thinks about all this kerry-bashing. I know he isn't a fan of bashing, but maybe that's just a double-standard that is only used against Kerry?

You've asked this same question of CAD a number of times. Yet, each time he ignores you. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were put on the don't give him the stisfaction list. I'm proud to say I'm a founding member.

Actually, it gets to be kind of comical after a while.

CAD - "Kerry flip-flops"
Gaard - "Does Bush flip-flop?"
CAD - "Yes, the right has a problem with it."
Gaard - "That's not what I asked. Does Bush flip-flop?"
CAD - "I'm not going to give you the satisfaction."


CAD - "I'm against Bush-bashing."
Infohawk - "Are you against Kerry-bashing as well, or just Bush-bashing?"
CAD - no reply


CAD - "It's important to keep things in context."
heartsurgeon - an out-of-context Kerry quote (again)
Gaard - "Hey CAD, will you explain to heartsurgeon the importance of 'context'?"
CAD - no reply

He hasn't used the "not giving you the satisfaction" line. I often get, "I've already been over this" -- as in a different thread with someone else ages ago. I guess he only explained his support for the war once and if anyone missed it the problem is with them.

On the other hand, he did mention not wanting to give me something I could use against him. He mentioned you. I guess he considers it unfair if you point out his inconsistencies. Instead of letting his ideas get challegenged, he likes to keep his head in the sand. Anyway, from the post, it sounded like he feared you.

Anyway, I will keep reminding him of his "Bush-bashing" argument until he either addresses it head on (the farthest I've gotten him to go is: "It's different") or he stops mentioning so-called Bush-bashing.

:roll: You are absolutely hilarious. I'm sorry you don't understand what Bush-bashing is. You might understand it if you paid attention...but alas I know I'm asking too much.

Gaard just wants a sound-bite/quote for his collection. It's not going to happen. I explained to him that both sides have issues with changing their stances on certain things. He just didn't seem to like that answer and keeps trying to put it in a Bush only context which I'm not playing. The subject wasn't Bush - but rather it was kerry and gaard tried to divert or attempt to make an equivalency argument which just isn't the case between these two politicians. As I pointed out before - kerry sucks at nuance and is blatantly horrible at "explaining" himself out of those situations. THAT is why kerry gets the "flip-flop" title when others don't. It isn't a one issue thing - it's a pattern. A pattern he's sustained for quite some time. Sure he's not the only one who does it - but like I said - he's notoriously blatant and sucky at it.
Oh, and I'm still not going to rehash the WAR argument over and over. I've repeatedly stated my stance - You might want to search for it instead of whining.
But sure, think what you may - it is you who has looked the fool when we tangle. If you wish to keep trying - be my guest. Who am I to turn away a glutton for punishment?


Gaard - Info, like you has attempted to make an equivalency argument which just doesn't play.(re: your quote of him). If he understood what "Bush-bashing" was then he wouldn't have asked that. Presenting kerry's voting record isn't "bashing" -but when someone goes off on some half-asses rhetoric filled tirade about Bush(which happens frequently) - that would be "bashing". The innuendo and rhetoric make it bashing whereas presenting someone's voting record is not. Info doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the two types. Sorry you didn't seem to catch the context of our multiple exchanges regarding the "bashing" issue.
Oh and I'm not sure why you think mentioning that "context" quote is anything special. Your issue was with HS - not me. Whatever floats your boat I guess.:roll:

CkG

 

[TechJunkie95242]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Kerry supported no child left behind act, now is against it. He was against upgrading and expanding the the military, now is for it. He was for Vietnam, then against, now for it. He was for the Iraq invasion, then was against it, now is for it. Who knows what Kerry will be for, or against tomorrow. Hell! he even confused himself with Sen Bob Kerry in one of his ads, which is still running even though it is 100 percent false. Kerry did not cast the vote to create oodles of jobs as suggested.......that was Bob Kerrey.

In short, when Kerry says something that he stands by, I would listen. Until then, virtually anything Bush throws at him sticks because Kerry has likely been for it at some time in his career, and even though he is now against it, it is likely given his history that he will be for it soon enough.

Whatever happened to Dean? At least HE didn't change his mind or opinion every time the pollsters told him to. I kinda think in retrospect that he was a better choice than Kerry.

Kerry supported no child left behind act, now is against it.- Because it was underfunded by 9billion and is not an effective program even though Bush said he would fund it completly.

He was against upgrading and expanding the the military, now is for it.- Because Bush went about going to war the wrong way and in his most recent book I believe he calls that vote a "protest vote", also the "For Against " quote the Republicans most like to say.

He was for Vietnam-I don't believe he ever mentioned he was FOR the Vietnam war, however, he was FOR defending his country because it was the right thing to do, still more than Bush could ever do... The right thing.

He was for the Iraq invasion, then was against it, now is for it-Again, Bush did not form a REAL coalition and basically said "F U" to the U.N. and did not go about war the right way.

I find it funny how all the Bushies can twist the truth to discredit the man because thats all the Bushies do is twist the truth; because if they didn't, they would have nothing to say about him.

 

[arsbanned]

Bush needs to Drop Dick

No, America needs to drop Dick and Bush. We have enough of those.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Why would I need to address the conservative side of it? That was the topic of the thread. I was pointing out that the Bush Admin isn't the only ones doing this.

Also, it would make sense that Bush would have more negative ads. He is the incumbant (sp?). Everyone already knows him and his policies. Kerry, OTOH, still needs to establish his position on...just about everything. He needs to let people know who he is and what he stands for. Bush doesn't. This leaves Bush more time to run negative ads.

So it is NOT a republican conspiracy, like so many of you think.

That is wrong. When the incumbent has a good record, he does both kinds of ads. He runs on his record. He reminds voters of how good he is. He attacks his opponent too.

Dubya has nothing to run on. He wants us to forget how bad he is. Attacking Kerry is his only strategery.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Bush needs to Drop Dick

No, America needs to drop Dick and Bush. We have enough of those.

You can never get enough bush. Dick and Dubya have to go.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242

Originally posted by: maluckey
Kerry supported no child left behind act, now is against it. He was against upgrading and expanding the the military, now is for it. He was for Vietnam, then against, now for it. He was for the Iraq invasion, then was against it, now is for it. Who knows what Kerry will be for, or against tomorrow. Hell! he even confused himself with Sen Bob Kerry in one of his ads, which is still running even though it is 100 percent false. Kerry did not cast the vote to create oodles of jobs as suggested.......that was Bob Kerrey.

In short, when Kerry says something that he stands by, I would listen. Until then, virtually anything Bush throws at him sticks because Kerry has likely been for it at some time in his career, and even though he is now against it, it is likely given his history that he will be for it soon enough.

Whatever happened to Dean? At least HE didn't change his mind or opinion every time the pollsters told him to. I kinda think in retrospect that he was a better choice than Kerry.

Kerry supported no child left behind act, now is against it.- Because it was underfunded by 9billion and is not an effective program even though Bush said he would fund it completly.

He was against upgrading and expanding the the military, now is for it.- Because Bush went about going to war the wrong way and in his most recent book I believe he calls that vote a "protest vote", also the "For Against " quote the Republicans most like to say.

He was for Vietnam-I don't believe he ever mentioned he was FOR the Vietnam war, however, he was FOR defending his country because it was the right thing to do, still more than Bush could ever do... The right thing.

He was for the Iraq invasion, then was against it, now is for it-Again, Bush did not form a REAL coalition and basically said "F U" to the U.N. and did not go about war the right way.

I find it funny how all the Bushies can twist the truth to discredit the man because thats all the Bushies do is twist the truth; because if they didn't, they would have nothing to say about him.

:beer:

 

[Infohawk]

:roll: You are absolutely hilarious. I'm sorry you don't understand what Bush-bashing is. You might understand it if you paid attention...but alas I know I'm asking too much.

Gaard just wants a sound-bite/quote for his collection. It's not going to happen. I explained to him that both sides have issues with changing their stances on certain things. He just didn't seem to like that answer and keeps trying to put it in a Bush only context which I'm not playing. The subject wasn't Bush - but rather it was kerry and gaard tried to divert or attempt to make an equivalency argument which just isn't the case between these two politicians. As I pointed out before - kerry sucks at nuance and is blatantly horrible at "explaining" himself out of those situations. THAT is why kerry gets the "flip-flop" title when others don't. It isn't a one issue thing - it's a pattern. A pattern he's sustained for quite some time. Sure he's not the only one who does it - but like I said - he's notoriously blatant and sucky at it.
Oh, and I'm still not going to rehash the WAR argument over and over. I've repeatedly stated my stance - You might want to search for it instead of whining.
But sure, think what you may - it is you who has looked the fool when we tangle. If you wish to keep trying - be my guest. Who am I to turn away a glutton for punishment?


Gaard - Info, like you has attempted to make an equivalency argument which just doesn't play.(re: your quote of him). If he understood what "Bush-bashing" was then he wouldn't have asked that. Presenting kerry's voting record isn't "bashing" -but when someone goes off on some half-asses rhetoric filled tirade about Bush(which happens frequently) - that would be "bashing". The innuendo and rhetoric make it bashing whereas presenting someone's voting record is not. Info doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the two types. Sorry you didn't seem to catch the context of our multiple exchanges regarding the "bashing" issue.
Oh and I'm not sure why you think mentioning that "context" quote is anything special. Your issue was with HS - not me. Whatever floats your boat I guess.:roll:

CkG

Nobody here is saying that Bush and Kerry are similar. I'm saying the so-called bashing is similar: people insult each candidate and use their records against them. Again, the issue is: what is the difference between Bush-bashing (which you complain about so much) and kerry-bashing (which you don't seem to have a problem with)? For example, someone says Kerry is a flip-flopper and votes against body armor. You don't complain about this bashing. If someone says Bush is a moron and started an unjust war, you complain about bashing. Now there's two possibilities here: your distaste for so-called bashing is inconsistent or you really are targeting the criticisms of Bush. If it's the latter, you need to address the argument that Bush is stupid or started an unjust war, and not whine about so-called bashing. Which one is it?

I think most objective observers would come to the conclusion that you do not know what distinguishes Bush-bashing and Kerry-bashing and that your "pay more attention" lines are just distractions from the fact you don't have an answer.

This is not poker. It's a discussion. What are you trying to hide? I don't have any positions or views that I need to hide. That's because I think they can withstand reasonable attacks or, if they can't, I'd be happy to change my position if someone proves me wrong.

 

[PUNKtotalled]

A french guy point of view:

Bush is a bummer and Kerry should win.

Big numbers of europeans think so.