Bush rebounding in polls

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

If any of you would actually listen to what Kerry has to say in his speeches, instead of relying on Fox News and Rush...

You know it's funny, liberal media has become so commonplace, that when 1 or 2 news sources don't put a liberal slant on things, they seem off the norm. I hear so much Fox News bashing, and I don't get it. Are you upset that liberals don't control 100% of the media now? As a conservative, it's so refreshing to have a news source on my side for once. Like Hitler and Saddam, liberals feel if they control the media, they can brainwash the public.

It's just funny to hear, "If you listen to the liberal media, you'd hear what Kerry has to say." Well, DUH!

A news source "on your side"?!?!? Umm, news should be fair and balanced (irony intended). I don't want any slant on my news, I just want the facts plain and simple. Do journalists in mainstream media tend to lean left? Sure. But the thought that there is a concerted effort to put a liberal slant on their reporting is as ridiculous as the fast rightwing conspiracy.

I've noticed the quality of all media go down in recent years. More of a focus on sensationalism and bombastic personalities, less on just straight reporting.

 

[MrPALCO]

??religion is a surrender to dogma, ignorance and/or stupidity. :roll:? ? Harvey

Agreed. There is no group more in surrender than the community of stupid, ignorant atheists.

Truly, they are a very religious (in bondage and beholden to secular dogma) group.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
??religion is a surrender to dogma, ignorance and/or stupidity. :roll:? ? Harvey

Agreed. There is no group more in surrender than the community of stupid, ignorant atheists.

Truly, they are a very religious (in bondage and beholden to secular dogma) group.

Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior?

 

[MrPALCO]

Yes.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

. I can always count on you to prove that religion is a surrender to dogma, ignorance and/or stupidity.

even if it's not true.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

I can't believe how many people support Kerry despite the fact that he has give NO specifics on anything yet. I don't think Bush is that great of a president, but Kerry looks worse.

If any of you would actually listen to what Kerry has to say in his speeches, instead of relying on Fox News and Rush, you'd find the opposite to be true. He is very specific on his stance on tax cuts, Iraq, etc. The Bush administration and other conservatives like to make broad generalizations of Kerry that are just untrue. They say he's going to increase taxes, but neglect to mention that he plans to keep taxes the same for 99% of Americans and only plans on increases taxes for the rich. They say he will make the country unsafe against terrorists, when he really wants to make our attack on the terrorists a truly global effort. He wants to take our men and women out of Iraq and send them back home, and not have the brunt of the war effort be on our part. He wants a collected effort. Makes sense to me, of course none of you conservatives have ever or will ever bother to listen to what he actually has to say.

Yea but you never know what he is gonna flip on from week to week. Depending who he is talking to he could say 2 completely opposite things on the same subject and has many times already. This equates to saying nothing in my mind since he apparently has no definite position on most things.

 

[conjur]

Name some of these alleged flip-flops of Kerry, please.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur
Name some of these alleged flip-flops of Kerry, please.

Kerry On Iraq
Kerry's Flip Flops

Don't attack the source. It was just easiest to find. The info is true, and could be found elsewhere.

?Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.? - John Kerry 8/6/03 (The Patriot Act was passed 98-1 by the Senate, and Kerry was not the 1 nay vote.)

 

[conjur]

How about some real proof. I don't want rhetoric and lies from the georgewbush.com site.


Oh, btw,

Despite numbers, Bush lacks poll vault

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur
How about some real proof. I don't want rhetoric and lies from the georgewbush.com site.

Do you doubt the validity? Do I have to post links to the same info from other sites? Don't make me do that work.

 

[conjur]

You make the claim, you show the proof.

Had I shown something from www.johnkerry.com about Bush, would you take it at face value? Of course not. Neither would I.

 

[Rob9874]

Non-gwb.com link

Another

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Non-gwb.com link

First supposed flip-flop:

Kerry rejects Bush's tax cuts as inappropriate in a time of war. I agree. So did Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan.



Second supposed flip-flop isn't a flip-flop at all. It's consistent all the way. Kerry never wanted Bush to act unilaterally and didn't want to be tied to a UN resolution. However, Kerry criticized Bush for not exhausting all remedies (such as inspections which were making progress and culling true worldwide support like Bush, Sr. did.)



Keep trying, though.


BTW, from your own link:

Here are two switches commonly attributed to John Kerry?and the context his critics leave out.

LOL!! You link to a site that you think is critical of Kerry but, in fact, debunks your claims!



Oh, now you're linking to the NY Post?!?! BWA HA HA HA HA!! Next you'll be linking to Newsmax!!


You want some flip-flops? Here are some flip-flops. See my first post here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1333037&highlight_key=y&keyword1=yucca

 

[Rob9874]

OK, another

All you have to do is a Google News search for "Kerry Flip Flops" and you'll find hundreds. I mean, it's become the guy's trademark. And you're questioning it? It's not as if we made it up.

 

[conjur]

Washington Times? That's Newsmax-lite!

Rob, come on. If you want credibility up here, you really must at least make an effort.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: conjur
Washington Times? That's Newsmax-lite!

Rob, come on. If you want credibility up here, you really must at least make an effort.

Con, you know full well that attacking the source isn't attacking the argument.

Are you just giving up on an ideological basis, or can you actually argue against the facts put-forth by the link?

Or do we just blink at each other unwilling to look at news-fact sources that don't align without political views?

 

[conjur]

LMK, it's well-known the sites he's linked to so far are worthless. What if I posted something from DemocraticUnderground or the World Socialist Website?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur
LMK, it's well-known the sites he's linked to so far are worthless. What if I posted something from DemocraticUnderground or the World Socialist Website?

If Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, who the hell cares if it was posted by the Washington Times or the LA Times? You're skirting the issue.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The thing is Rob doesn't have much an argument to stand on, yet he continues on as if he did. He refuses to even look at our rebutalls and the shortcomings of his own arguments. He's so blindsided with his partisanship that he makes debating extremely challenging....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: conjur
LMK, it's well-known the sites he's linked to so far are worthless. What if I posted something from DemocraticUnderground or the World Socialist Website?

If Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, who the hell cares if it was posted by the Washington Times or the LA Times? You're skirting the issue.

You haven't posted anything about that yet.

Besides, many Republican Senators regret passing the Patriot Act, too. It went too quickly and many didn't realize how it would lead to abuses and the obliteration of certain civil rights.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
The thing is Rob doesn't have much an argument to stand on, yet he continues on as if he did. He refuses to even look at our rebutalls and the shortcomings of his own arguments. He's so blindsided with his partisanship that he makes debating extremely challenging....

I have yet to hear one solid argument, except "your arguments are blindly partisan." Explain why Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, then argues against it later. If someone can explain that with any logic, I'll vote for Kerry.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: conjur
LMK, it's well-known the sites he's linked to so far are worthless. What if I posted something from DemocraticUnderground or the World Socialist Website?

If Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, who the hell cares if it was posted by the Washington Times or the LA Times? You're skirting the issue.

You haven't posted anything about that yet.

I sure have, you just failed to open any links that weren't from a liberal media source.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
The thing is Rob doesn't have much an argument to stand on, yet he continues on as if he did. He refuses to even look at our rebutalls and the shortcomings of his own arguments. He's so blindsided with his partisanship that he makes debating extremely challenging....

I have yet to hear one solid argument, except "your arguments are blindly partisan." Explain why Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, then argues against it later. If someone can explain that with any logic, I'll vote for Kerry.

Read my post above yours there.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: conjur
LMK, it's well-known the sites he's linked to so far are worthless. What if I posted something from DemocraticUnderground or the World Socialist Website?

Spews-max is about on-par with demUG

but Washington times is more on-par with the NewYork Times.

but it's a matter of perspective, fact is that if you can't argue the points then you've lost the argument.

but then, if he can't pull the points form the article, I don?t see as how you need to respond. I?d respond to chosen points, even from demUG *mostly because they are so ignorantly bias that it?s not hard to point out the flaws *, but i wouldn't go reading an article w/out the points that the person I?m talking to agrees with being specifically pointed out.

But attacking the sight doesn't make you right.

Second supposed flip-flop isn't a flip-flop at all. It's consistent all the way. Kerry never wanted Bush to act unilaterally and didn't want to be tied to a UN resolution. However, Kerry criticized Bush for not exhausting all remedies .

that's a joke right?
that's like me trying to tell you, with a striate face, that bush didn't want to go into Iraq from the start of his presidency.

we know what's BS on both sides, no need to pomp-up and act like Kerry didn't fully support war when he agreed to allow the president to go. Nor did Kerry really think that we shouldn't fund the troupes when he voted against the money for them.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Rob9874
If Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, who the hell cares if it was posted by the Washington Times or the LA Times? You're skirting the issue.

You haven't posted anything about that yet.

I sure have, you just failed to open any links that weren't from a liberal media source.

No, you didn't. Unless it was somewhere on the georgewbush.com site. You have to be seriously deluded if you think anyone will take a campaign website as a source of non-biased truth.