I think the following would be an interesting script for a commerical for a Democratic activist group:
1) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he’s against nation building.
2) Footage of dead and dying American soldiers and dead and dying Iraqis, including some of that brutal footage from “F 9/11.”
3) Footage of Bush declaring “MIssion Accomplished.”
4) Footage of headlines declaring over a thousand Americans killed.
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without a word of protest from the White House, intercut with dead and dying young people or terrorists fighting assault weapons.
7) Footage of Bush saying that he’s keeping us safer. Freeze Frame, and the following words appear:
“While he’s lyin’, we’re dyin’.”
Paid for by the Committe of People Who Don’t Want to See More People Die On George Bush’s Watch.
Just a passing thought.
PAD
• 
Bush lied! People died!
Oh gawd!
You’re still clinging to that silly slogan, aren’t you? Nevermind the fact that the 9/11 Commission, MI-6 Intelligence Report, Russian Intelligence Report, and others have all reported the same thing: That everybody thought Iraq did have WMDs. All the intelligence pointed to it. Not just ours, but everybody else’s.
I also find it hilarious how you liberals love to toss around “Swift Boat Vets!” Where was the outrage when “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which was basically a two-hours-long attack ad against Bush full of deceits and distortions, came out? If I remember right, PAD praised it. Even said something along the lines of “You must see this movie before you vote or you’re being ignorant!”
Did you ever take up my offer to read “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man”? Will you go out and watch “Michael Moore Hates America” if [when] it comes out in the theater? Just to keep things balanced? Or maybe at least mosey on over to MooreWatch.com? How are Moore’s lies any different than those of the SBVs?
And hey, why have you been mum about memo-gate? Ya know, when Dan Rather and the “conservative” media leaked out lousy forges that “questions” Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard? Those forgies that were disproved in fifteen minutes flat by the blogosphere. Of course you don’t want to say anything about that. That makes your side looks bad.
I love this. Everybody’s so quick to scream, “Your side fights dirty! Our side is the clean, pure, innocent one! Your side lies! Our side tells the truth!” Here’s news for you, pal. The Democrats are just as dirty as you think the Republicans are. To pretend otherwise is just putting blinders on your eyes and chanting “lalalala I can’t hear you!”
So go ahead, make that ad. Keep on parroting the shrill “Bush lied! People died!” line. It just pushes more people to the winning side. I hope you enjoy four more years of Bush. I know I will.
Starving Writer wtote:Bush lied! People died!
Oh gawd!
You’re still clinging to that silly slogan, aren’t you?
I think it’s interesting that you would apply the word silly and at the same breath tie that in with people dying.
You can shout and rant and whine and blame this on the “liberals” or blame that on the “liberals” all you want.
But the fact is a lot of people have died. And more will keep dying over a series of convnient lies and deceptions.
It’s “nice” to read how smug and happy your post sounds while good men and women are dying over a incredibly poorly planned war.
“winning side”???! What, this is all a game to you??!
Jesus, I’m constantly amazed how all these partisan right wings and partisan left wings care ONLY that their side “wins” that no matter how many bodies have to be trod on, ignored or killed –just as long as they “win”
pathetic.
Bill Maher cummed it up succinctly the other night when he pointed out the many opportunities lost to the Dems to actively fight back in open confrontation against some of the 527s and other mud slinging.
What John Kerry must do now is use the opportunity for debate to hammer the President in person.
This will be very difficult to pull off without coming across like a reactionary, but the opportunity must be seized without fail.
This explains why the President’s handlers are reluctant to have more than one debate and why they are trying to time it so that if John Kerry does seize this opportunity, the effects will be muted by election day.
The same goes for Edwards vs Cheney, and perhaps even moreso because Mr. Edwards strikes me as more likely to open up with both barrels.
This should be a very entertaining fall season…..
With apologies to Bill Maher, that’s “summed”, not “cummed”. There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip…..
I’m voting against George Bush because I believe that he believes that he is leading us in a Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that because we think we are the best and smartest in the world that we must force our ways onto the rest of the world.
Decade after decade, and even century after century, powerful countries have tried to force the rest of the world into their own self image. It has never worked. The biggest recent, non-communist dynasty was the British Empire. Look at all the troubles that are still ongoing in the countries that have broken away from the Empire. Trying to take over the world only works in fantasy.
We do not have a Manifest Destiny just because we are the United States of America. We have a responsibility to set a good example for the rest of the world. George Bush does not do this.
You’re still clinging to that silly slogan, aren’t you? Nevermind the fact that the 9/11 Commission, MI-6 Intelligence Report, Russian Intelligence Report, and others have all reported the same thing: That everybody thought Iraq did have WMDs. All the intelligence pointed to it. Not just ours, but everybody else’s.
Yet, no one else felt there was a pressing need to invade Iraq to rid us of Saddam, except for the man whose father attempted it a decade ago and failed.
BTW, this week, what’s the main reason we went in? It keeps changing so much, I forget.
James Tichy writes:
“I like George W. Bush. I think he has done a fantastic job.”
Hmmm…. Let’s see….
fan
Alan –
That’s pretty much the exact reason why I’m voting Kerry. Bush acts like he wants to be Emperor, not President. He talks about not letting the government run people’s personal lives, but he wants to ban gay marriages, he imposed the godawful Patriot Act…every day I just want to slap him that much more.
Also, my now personal vested interest – my closest friend, the man I love more than anyone except my fiance, will be shipped out to Iraq as of Sunday. I do support our troops, but I have NEVER supported this war (there’s a huge difference). If anything happens to Ben, I will hold Bush personally responsible, just like he’s personally responsible for a thousand other dead soldiers.
I want him OUT. I registered to vote yesterday and dámņìŧ, I’m going to vote. Because all the protesting and finger-pointing and message board discussion won’t do a dámņ thing when it really matters. I hope everyone on here at least agress on THAT point.
Peter, would it be better if soldiers died under Kerry’s watch?
What’s Kerry’s alternative? He backs the Bush’s plan and has said even in hindsight he would have voted to give Bush the authorization.
His plan for Iraq is to convince other countries that their soldiers should be under attack or beheaded in Iraq. If other countries say “Haha, I don’t think so,” Kerry plans to send more troops in–which is the same advice being given to Bush.
As many on the left, like Bill Maher, or on the right, like Patrick Buchanan, who were foursquare against the war, you have no vote in the presidential election (except for Nader).
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Did you see Buchanan on THE DAILY SHOW? He succinctly laid out the case against BOTH Bush (for the war) AND against Kerry (for voting for it before and in hindsight).
>This is no longer an industrial nation. The idustrial revolution has come and gone… it’s place is in third world countries now. The is the technology and information age and that is what we should be focusing on.
So, when do we start setting up the resettlement camps for the large numbers of people whose built-in intellectual limitations PREVENT them from being ableto work in this wonderful new technology and information age? Training someone to put part “a” in slot “b” is one thing. Training them to be a software enginner is something else.
Nobody seems to be thinking about this.
Can you say “whistling in the dark”? Because this will come home to roost as a major societal problem and nobody seems to give a rat’s ášš about doing something now, before the fallout hits.
>The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime.
The UK has the largest number of surveillance cameras in use in the world.
Crime has gone up, and the IRA wasn’t even slowed down while they were still in action (prior to NEGOTIATIONS solving the problem).
So much for cameras working.
Alan wrote:
“I’m voting against George Bush because I believe that he believes that he is leading us in a Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that because we think we are the best and smartest in the world that we must force our ways onto the rest of the world.”
We may not automatically be the best and smartest in the world, but we’re certainly a hëll of a lot better than the dictatorships in the Middle East.
Gorginfoogle wrote:
“Alan wrote:
“I’m voting against George Bush because I believe that he believes that he is leading us in a Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that because we think we are the best and smartest in the world that we must force our ways onto the rest of the world.”
We may not automatically be the best and smartest in the world, but we’re certainly a hëll of a lot better than the dictatorships in the Middle East.”
So, Gorginfoogle, how much time have you spent living in the “dictatorships in the Middle East?” How many years’ experience do you have to say that life there is so untolerable, so unbearable, so repressive, that people are crying out to the US and Bush’s administration “save us, save us?” How many people do you know, personally, living in those “dictatorships in the Middle East” who complain about their standard of living, of their chances to provide their families with good, decent homes?
Because I don’t know any. I do know a few transplants, and they’ve said that they were better off before they came over. There, they were engineers and doctors, highly regarded, respected, wanted. Here, the work in gas stations and drive taxis. That’s not just a stereotype, those are people I know personally.
I’ve also met people who are happy to live and work here in the US. These folks have the had the good fortune to not only be doctors in their homeland, but also here. They often travel back, because they love their home so much, and they have friends and family who are happy and content to live within a “dictatorships in the Middle East.”
When did a governmental dictatorship system become equated with evil? It’s not the system, it’s the leaders, and dictatorships are no less or no more susceptible to corruption and waste than, oh, say, democracies, or representative republics.
Then agian, if dictatorships, in your view, ARE a bad thing, well, hey, we’re 2/3 of the way there. We’re supposed to have a 3 level government that serves as a series of checks and balances on each other. Yet congress has pretty much ceded the ability to declare and wage war upon the executive. The only thing the office of the president lacks is the ability to pass laws. Oh, wait, with executive orders, he can do that. And the administrative agency system allows him to pass laws, er, regulations. Good thing he doesn’t have judicial power…oh, wait, administrative agencies have primary oversight of their own decisions, so I guess in a way he does.
Seems we’re maybe closer to a 2/3 dictatorship that I thought. Thank God we’re not in the Middle East, huh?
I still fail to see how “staying the course” is automatically an admirable thing, while changing one’s stance as the facts or situation changes is unilaterally a bad thing. If I’m driving down the road, and the road curves to go round a lake, I’m sure the hëll not going to keep going straight simply out of the fear that turning will make me look indecisive. And I CERTAINLY wouldn’t want to ride in a car driven by somebody who thinks that changing direction is for weenies.
There’s a British saying I think’s appropriate. “Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them.”
Kerry has to play negative to elevate himself into position. Bush has to make the electorate scared of the devil they don’t know.
Seeing as how Congress let it lapse
Yet, did Bush even ONCE suggest that Congress should renew the ban?
He’s allowed to do that, you know.
Luigi Novi wrote:
“The two aren
Oh, well. At least the congress never voted to authorize the war in… oh, wait. Well, certainly the Democrats on the Hill would never have voted to… what’s that you say? Overwhelmingly, you say? Oh, but the opposition nominee for president would never have… really? But what if you asked him if he’d still vote for war even knowing what we know now… He said THAT? Hmm. Well, at least the nominee must have a clear and consistent plan for what to do in… before he voted against it, you say? We need 60,000 more troops in Iraq, while simultaneously getting all troops out in four years, make it six months? The Pro-Anti-Pro war considate who would still do even though it’s wrong? (At least he doesn’t believe life begins at conception while still demanding that what he himself describes as murder be… oh.)
And all this trouble, even though Saddam Hussein was no threat to… Red Cropss says 300,000 civillians in mass graves, huh, with the Iraqis saying up to a million? Celebrated the 9/11 attacks publicly? Attempted to assassinated a former US President? Founded, trained and orchestrated international terrorist groups, including al Qaida? Well, at least we know for certain no Democrat president would ever say Saddam had WMDs, that’s for… really? Over and over again? And Albright, and Daschle, and Chiroc? Not GORE? And that’s why we bombed unilaterally multiple times in the 90s, against the wishes of the UN security council? Well, if things were great under Saddam, things with the Taliban were SPIFFY, especially for women and little girls who… not so much, you say? I’ll be darned.
Well, about the assault weapons ban, seeing as AK-47s were banned in the 80s, and machine guns have been under import embargo since 1934 I’m POSITIVE Kerry wouldn’t have said anything about THOSE weapons being… oh. Really.
Well, one thing’s for certain, no web site the great Peter David would host could ever grotesquely slander our fallen soldiers with some idiotic “lyin’ dyin'” comment, and…
oh.
I suggest “While he is lying, they are diying”. I can’t understand people concern about soldiers dying, they are not the boy scouts, army is an organization with the objective of killing people. Soldiers know this. I know their families are in pain, and no soldier wants to die, but who is responsible? I feel sorry for the other people.
“I do know a few transplants, and they’ve said that they were better off before they came over. There, they were engineers and doctors, highly regarded, respected, wanted. Here, they work in gas stations and drive taxis. That’s not just a stereotype, those are people I know personally.”
No offense intended but why exactly did they come here? It seems like it would be a tremendous hassle to do so only to experience the thrill of going from doctor to taxi cab driver. Unless we are still in the business of chaining people to the bottom of ships and forcing them to come to America I have to wonder what they were thinking.
On the assault weapons ban:
Anyone interested in the truth will probably want to avert his or her eyes when the next big MoveOn.org ad comes on. A perfect case of misleading facts, it goes something like this:
“Announcer: This is an assault weapon. It can fire up to 300 rounds a minute. It
“It is clear from these and other statements that o fundamental matters of war and peace, and on the major strategic and tactical questions that follow from them, that John Kerry will not or cannot hold to a position under pressure. “
No, it’s clear that conservatives who howl bloody murder if a Bush or Cheney comment is not given its full three or four graf context will not hesitate to pull single sentences out of far lengthier and nuanced responses if it serves their purposes.
And by the way, several of those so-called flip flops actually don’t contradict each other at all. They’re nuanced responses to different sides of a question.
By the way, the current running tally for Iraq: this week, fourteen US troops killed, 219 wounded, with a total of 1018 killed and 7,245 wounded since March 2003.
Iraqis: 200 killed this week, at least 10,000 killed since March 2003. Foreign workers: 2 kidnapped this week, 130 kidnapped, 22 killed since March 2003.
I’m more inclined to go with someone who realizes that something might not be a good idea than soeone who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it, and is so incapable of self-analysis that he can’t even think of a single thing he’s done wrong in the past several years (can ANYONE here not think of a SINGLE thing they’ve screwed up since 2000?) Furthermore, I kind of like my leaders a touch less Machiavellan. Less “ends justifies the means” types, as opposed to those (and their followers) who believe that because the world is better off without Saddam in charge, therefore absolutely everything and anything that was done in order to accomplish it was and continues to be acceptable.
Life isn’t like that. Fantasy is like that. Which is why, yes, Bush is a fantastic president.
PAD
Any weapon firing 300 rounds or more per minute is illegal for civilians without clearance by the Department of Justice.
Take a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again, and you have something rather close to the truth.
But you wouldn’t want people to learn the truth, would you?
Providing more information on immigrants I have known. They came here for the opportunity, for the travel, for the experience. What I mean is that some of them can’t get jobs. Intelligent, educated, experienced professionals in fields where there are jobs don’t get hired in our country because of prejudice and ignorance.
So, no, no one made them come here. But no one made them leave, either. The point I was trying to make was that the system of government had little to do with whether they had success or failure in their chosen career.
Why am I voting for Kerry? Because it’s time for someone different at the helm of our country. As another poster said, all Bush has done is campaign on his war effort and of 9/11 related actions. I want someone that cares about where we are, where we’re heading, and what we can become. I think that Kerry is the choice for that.
Then why hasn’t Kerry pointed out his record in the Senate? I mean, if I didn’t already know, I’d be hard pressed to know that he was EVER in the Senate. If he’s going to do so much to change the future, shouldn’t his past voting record reflect that? And if he’s proud of that record, why not run on that instead of on a war that he personally campaigned against. Why try to hold himself up as a war hero?
“He’s lyin’.
They’re dyin’.”
Shorter is better.
eclark 1849 wrote:
“Then why hasn’t Kerry pointed out his record in the Senate? I mean, if I didn’t already know, I’d be hard pressed to know that he was EVER in the Senate. If he’s going to do so much to change the future, shouldn’t his past voting record reflect that? And if he’s proud of that record, why not run on that instead of on a war that he personally campaigned against. Why try to hold himself up as a war hero?”
This mirrors some of my thoughts as well. As an independent voter, I find that Kerry has still not defined himself. Most of his statements are about what Bush is doing wrong, rather than specific examples of what Kerry would do right.
Kerry reminds me of a fan in the stands of some baseball stadium, shouting his displeasure to no one in particular about why the guy on the field sucks. Is the beligerent fan a professional ballplayer? Can he hit, field or pitch? Is he perhaps a professional baseball manager? No one around him really knows. He COULD be, but to most people within earshot, it is assumed he is just a loudmouthed, armchair critic.
However, unlike the fan in my example, Kerry actually has a stage available to SHOW onlookers what he can do. Such opportunities are rare in life. But does Kerry seize the opportunity and outline his plans and vision for the country? No. He just continues to spout off one-liners criticizing the player on the field (“W” is for wrong!”; “Bush created more excuses than jobs!”; etc.). Thus, while Kerry is now out on the field in the spotlight, he has yet to step into the batter’s box to show us what he can really do.
Frankly, I’m seriously underwhelmed.
ObeeKris: Yet, no one else felt there was a pressing need to invade Iraq to rid us of Saddam, except for the man whose father attempted it a decade ago and failed.
Luigi Novi: George Bush senior never tried to rid us of Saddam. Once he was expelled from Kuwait, our UN mandate was fulfilled. Bush senior did not try to depose Saddam because he knew that to do so would
Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.
Then why hasn’t Kerry pointed out his record in the Senate?
And what exactly did Bush do as governor?
Bush senior did not try to depose Saddam because he knew that to do so would
kingbobb wrote:
“So, Gorginfoogle, how much time have you spent living in the “dictatorships in the Middle East?” How many years’ experience do you have to say that life there is so untolerable, so unbearable, so repressive, that people are crying out to the US and Bush’s administration “save us, save us?” How many people do you know, personally, living in those “dictatorships in the Middle East” who complain about their standard of living, of their chances to provide their families with good, decent homes?
Because I don’t know any. I do know a few transplants, and they’ve said that they were better off before they came over. There, they were engineers and doctors, highly regarded, respected, wanted. Here, the work in gas stations and drive taxis. That’s not just a stereotype, those are people I know personally.”
Gee, too bad for them. I also have a friend who is of Persian descent, though she has never actually been to Iran, since, you see, her mother had to flee the country before she was born. Jewish, you know.
“When did a governmental dictatorship system become equated with evil?”
Yeah, I doubt you’re going to find many people on this board or anywhere else that are going to agree even slightly with you on this.
“It’s not the system, it’s the leaders, and dictatorships are no less or no more susceptible to corruption and waste than, oh, say, democracies, or representative republics.”
Yes, because a system in which our leaders can be voted out of office by the public is equally prone to corruption as one in which there is no possible governmental oversight.
“Then agian, if dictatorships, in your view, ARE a bad thing, well, hey, we’re 2/3 of the way there. We’re supposed to have a 3 level government that serves as a series of checks and balances on each other. Yet congress has pretty much ceded the ability to declare and wage war upon the executive. The only thing the office of the president lacks is the ability to pass laws. Oh, wait, with executive orders, he can do that. And the administrative agency system allows him to pass laws, er, regulations. Good thing he doesn’t have judicial power…oh, wait, administrative agencies have primary oversight of their own decisions, so I guess in a way he does.”
I see. So someone you don’t like is in office, and so that means we’re already mostly a dictatorship as is. How quaint.
Tell you what. As soon as you can find something our government is doing that is as bad as, say, locking teenage girls in a burning school, letting them die horrible deaths rather than shame themselves by appearing in public without being fully covered from head to toe (gotta keep those women in line, you know, otherwise who knows what could happen), or carrying out ethnic cleansing against an unliked minority, or having a legal system in which a man can go to jail for a year for the crime of rape, while a woman will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death for the crime of BEING raped, or where a sports team can be tortured by the president’s kid for losing a match, or where…well, you get my point. As soon as you can find our government doing things as bad as that, then I’ll agree with you that we’re no better than one of those Middle Eastern dictatorships.
Craig T. Ries wrote:
“And what exactly did Bush do as governor?”
Bush has had four years of policies as a president to show what he’s like. He no longer needs to go by his record as governor. Kerry, however, needs to pull SOMETHING out to show, clearly, what his policies will be to convince us to vote for him. Simply saying that he’ll do things differently from Bush isn’t enough, we need to know WHAT he’s going to do differently and HOW, otherwise it’s just meaningless rhetoric (and yes, obviously even if he laid out a clear plan it could still turn out to be meaningless rhetoric if he gets elected and doesn’t implement that plan, but he still needs to convince everyone that he’s got a good plan for the future).
Zeek writes:
“Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.”
Wow, and the Red Sox haven’t won the World Series yet. Which has exactly as much to do with 9/11 or the war in Iraq as they have to do with one another: Nothing at all.
Gorginfoogle:
First off, where have I said I didn’t like our current administration? That’s a leap I don’t see my words supporting.
You’re missing my point. Which is that you’re painting with a broad brush. You claim dictatorships, and Middle Eastern dictatorships in particular, are bad. Saddam’s regime in Iraq was undoubtedly a dictatorship, and horrible, terrible things happened because of and under his direct command.
However, my point was that dictatorships themselves are not bad, so it’s dangerous to take the view that we’re fighting “evil” by promoting democracy over kings. The Taliban, which you refer to, was run by a council of clerics. It wasn’t a dictatorship. I’ve honestly now idea how those clerics attained their leadership positions, but there was no sole ruler of the Taliban regime. And before you start getting all “well, lookee what George W. did to the Taliban,” consider that for 10 years or more prior to 9/11/01, the Taliban ran an oppressive country where, yes, women were stoned to death for showing an inch of skin on their ankle. Our country did little to counter that non-dictatorship regime during Clinton’s term, and GWB’s term, until, hey, 9/11. Then it was all “hey everybody, lookee over there! Them’s oppressive Taliban’s Evil, and they’s got to go. Them and their terrorist freinds, AQ.”
Want to know what our government is doing that’s as bad as some of those things you mention? How about holding/detaining people in military camps for over 2 years, with no charges filed, no evidence presented, no due process of any kind. Our government approving the use of torture, aka “stress situations” in the “interrogation” of said detainees (when just about any compentent psychologist will tell you that torture of any kind produces, at best, information of questionable value. more often than not, torture is itself a tool of terror). Or how about our leader using a horrific attack as justification to wrest constitutional authority from congress to enable his little private war against Iraq, claiming that we’re in immediate danger of suffering another attack from WMDs, and when those WMDs fail to appear, shrugging his shoulders and saying “shucks, just ignore the 1000+ American casualties and 10,000+ Iraqi civilians dead, getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do.”
Luigi Novi, I was making a vieled reference to the administrative system many agencies have. Take the EPA. You get cited for some EPA violations, you don’t get to go in front of a judge. You plead your case before and Administrative Law Judge, an employee of the EPA, which means that you’re case involves a regulation written, administered, and enforced by the Executive branch. You do have limited appeal rights to the Judicial branch, but high deference is given to the executive agency.
And technically speaking, our courts only have “oversight” power. The judicial branch relies upon the executive branch for enforcement of its decisions.
And answers to those biased statements:
1) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he’s against nation building.
Unless failure by the UN to enforce its own rulings and forced to do so by a rogue nation.
2) Footage of dead and dying American soldiers and dead and dying Iraqis, including some of that brutal footage from “F 9/11.”
You mean, from the noted liar Michael Moore? So, I guess it would be better to have attacks in the streets of America to make us feel better about it?
3) Footage of Bush declaring “MIssion Accomplished.”
Yep, it was, against the Saddam Regime, it didn’t say “Entire Iraq Mission Accomplished”.
4) Footage of headlines declaring over a thousand Americans killed.
Let’s add the people from the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers too and pictures of the dead Rangers being dragged through the streets of Somalia. All on the Democrats watch.
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
Stats have proved that assault style weapons (rolls eyes) are used in less then 8 percent of crimes. Fully auto-weapons (full automatic fire for you people scared of guns means, a continious pull completely empties the clip) are used in 1 percent of all crimes. Wow, that law was great!!!
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without a word of protest from the White House, intercut with dead and dying young people or terrorists fighting assault weapons.
And those foreign fully-automatic weapons are affected how by an AMERICAN law?
7) Footage of Bush saying that he’s keeping us safer. Freeze Frame, and the following words appear:
“While he’s lyin’, we’re dyin’.”
And who has said that? Democrats? And you left out the important buzz word: “KIDS”. “Bush lied, kids died”, like instead of a volunteer army we are like the PLO and send out 9 year old with bombs strapped to their bodies. Those people use children, we send men and women to fight there, so they won’t fight *here*…
Paid for by the Committe of People Who Apparently Slept Though Terrorist Acts And Genocide (see Rwanda for a sample) On Clinton And 40 Years Of Democrat Party Slumber And Inaction
Thank you
“Take a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again, and you have something rather close to the truth.”
“But you wouldn’t want people to learn the truth, would you?”
Sure I do, though it might help if you wrote something understandable. I’ll assume you’re trying to say that with the ban now lifted it is now possible to buy guns that can be modified into something like an AK-47.
If true, a fair statement. Not what the ad said, but a fair statement.
But I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings picking on those swell MoveOn.org folks.
Queen Anthai –
“every day I just want to slap him that much more”
Here you go – spank away
http://www.spankbush.com
Craig –
“Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.”
When the towers fell 1000 soldiers had already died in Iraq?
Carl –
“Unless failure by the UN to enforce its own rulings and forced to do so by a rogue nation.”
Since the 2 countries who have violated the most UN resolutions (AKA rulings) are Isreal & Turkey, does this mean we should invade them as well? Also, just when did the U.S. become the enforcement branch of the UN?
“So, I guess it would be better to have attacks in the streets of America to make us feel better about it?”
What does this have to do with invading Iraq, when the ones who committed the attacks were not Iraqi?
“Let’s add the people from the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers too and pictures of the dead Rangers being dragged through the streets of Somalia. All on the Democrats watch.”
Again, what does any of this have to do with the Iraqi’s, When the terrorists were mostly Saudi & operating out of Afghanistan?
“40 Years Of Democrat Party Slumber And Inaction”
Those 40 years include Bush I, Reagan, Ford & Nixon. When did they become Democrats?
Craig,
By the way,are you under the impression that the assault weapons ban actually banned all assault weapons? Or that it is only now that you can get the “semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again”?
I’m no gun enthusiast but looking around the web it appears that the “ban” did not apply to existing guns and it has always been possible to illegally modify a gun.. It’s easier to buy an illegal AK-47 though.
The MoveOn ad was misleading, pure and simple, but if all it takes to pass the smell test is to have it be anti-Bush, well, then it’s just fine.
Carl wrote:
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
Stats have proved that assault style weapons (rolls eyes) are used in less then 8 percent of crimes. Fully auto-weapons (full automatic fire for you people scared of guns means, a continious pull completely empties the clip) are used in 1 percent of all crimes. Wow, that law was great!!!
Yeah, here we go.
Carl, do you actually think before you type? You answer the statement that FOOTAGE showing Bush stated that he SUPPORTED the ban with some rambling about stats, polls and percentages of crime.
How does that answer the statement that there is ACTUAL footage of Bush stating that he SUPPORTED the ban.
Oh….it doesn’t,
Silly me, expecteing the TRUTH from obvious, partisan posts.
Going back to yesterday for a moment:
“I for one am sick of hearing about losing manufacturing jobs. Guess what… they don’t matter.
This is no longer an industrial nation. The idustrial revolution has come and gone… it’s place is in third world countries now. The is the technology and information age and that is what we should be focusing on.”
Since March 2001, over 400,000 of these jobs have been lost. Should we also consider these as jobs that don’t matter?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&e=1&u=/ap/20040914/ap_on_hi_te/tech_job_slump
Yeah, he supported the ban. And did nothing to further it. Sometimes all it takes is for a good man to do nothing about a bad law. Do you think period RJM, does that stand for “Real Jerks Matter”? Thanks…
I was bored so I decided to look up the definition of partisan because I was unclear as to it
Carl,
Why am I not surprised that the ONLY way you could respond to my pointing out that you couldn’t defend your point was to call me names.
I can see though, why you support Bush. You’re similar, you can’t admit when you’re wrong.
It’s so easy for you RADICAL Partisan defenders, my guy right or wrong, to post ridiculious statements, not back up your arguments and hide behind anonymous names on the net.
RJM are my initials. It stands for my name, Richard John Marcej. I’m not some internet coward who finds that it’s easy to spout out inane, asinine comments, then when found to be wrong, rather than be a man and admit it, call someone a name.
“Bush senior did not try to depose Saddam because he knew that to do so would
James Tichy,
people like you scare the hëll out of me. you’ll vote *cough* bush *cough* because you don’t like all the attack ads. What about the attack ads from the “right”?
Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
By Graydon Carter
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746
03 September 2004
1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa’ida.
104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.
65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.
73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.
83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.
$1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.
1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.
79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.
3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi “Visa Express” programme.
140 Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September.
14 Number of Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa’ida is active.
$3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks.
$0 Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents.
$10m Amount Bush cut from the INS’s existing terrorism budget.
$50m Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia space shuttle crash.
$5m Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalised gambling.
7 Number of Arabic linguists fired by the US army between mid-August and mid-October 2002 for being gay.
George Bush: Military man
1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.
$3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush’s Alabama guard service.
600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush’s unit during that period.
0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush’s guard service.
0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Ðìçk Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove
Regarding the article from Vanity Fair that James slapped on Peter’s blog:
0 — Probable number of people (even Bush-haters) who slogged through the irritatingly-long laundry list you posted
RJM,
I have to say, who gives a šhìŧ what your intials are or what a big man you are? If you use deductive reasoning (I know it’s hard), you can see I leave my email address and it has cbooth in it? Duh? And you asked me if I think, that is the polite way of asking if you are stupid and a none-thinker.Wow,if you are the best that the liberals can field I can understand your squeamish hysterical panic.
Yours until the end of GWB’s term in 2008,
Carl S. Booth II (or would you like my social security and pin numbers too, “Big Man”?)
A True Democratic Ad
1) Footage of Candidate Kerry stating that he’s against defense spending and for slashing the intelligence budget at the height of the Cold War.
2) Footage of Kerry re-enacting his war hero days, especially shooting a fleeing teen in the back.
3) Footage of Kerry saying: “We raped, tortured, cut off ears, mulitated, etc…. much in the way of Genghis Khan…”
4) Footage of headlines from the ’70 of Kerry’s testimony against his “brothers in arms”.
5) Footage of Candidate Kerry saying he is for gun-owner ship and supports the 2nd Amendment, while holding a gun gift that he would have banned.
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without but lipservice from Democrats, Kerry or any one but die-hard gun grabbers.
7) Footage of Kerry saying the Genghis Khan speech again, with photos of prisoners in the Hanoi Hilton, freeze frame:
“While he lied, good men were tortured and died…”
Oh, my bad, the good men of the SwiftBoats already have most of this out here and Kerry’s “Viet Nam Tour ’04” has gone “number 10”. Too bad, the mystery to me, is you field this no character, nothing to run on guy with nothing but his questionable Viet Nam record and expect people to just sit back and vote like blind slave schmucks. Guess again…
“So, I guess it would be better to have attacks in the streets of America to make us feel better about it?”
What does this have to do with invading Iraq, when the ones who committed the attacks were not Iraqi?
Maybe because so much of the terrorist organizations’ focus is directed on Iraq. Iraq has become a kind of black hole sucking in every available violent Islamic extremist– the sort of people who used to join Al Qaeda. I doubt the war planners were precognitive, but if the USDOD somehow could have planned that, that would have been the kind of lie about war aims that I could live with. (After all, so many people already think the Iraq hawks are evil, so why can’t they be evil geniuses?)
Any weapon firing 300 rounds or more per minute is illegal for civilians without clearance by the Department of Justice.
Take a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again, and you have something rather close to the truth.
Are you under the impression that any of this is different now than it was last week? The assault weapons ban had a grandfather clause. Every single item in existence at the time it was passed was still legal to possess or sell while the ban was in force. 30-round assault rifle magazines were mass-produced in anticipation of the ban before it took effect and were readily available for $20-30 each. The lapse of the ban may drive prices down somewhat, and there were a few new gun designs that necessarily didn’t have grandfathered high-capacity magazines available, but generally the effect of the ban was trivial. Assault rifles could continue to be manufactured legally in the United States throughout the ban, as long as they complied with the requirement that the weapons could not have flash suppressors (which minimize the muzzle flare, to make it less blinding for the shooter at night), grenade launchers (no kidding), collapsible stocks (i.e. butts on the rifle which could be shortened for user convenience) and bayonet lugs. The bayonet lugs are the stupidest aspect of the ban– who is worried about a man wielding an AR-15 in hand-to-hand combat? An AR-15 with a bayonet is a $900 spear. It is this staggering display of non-legislation that expired on Monday. The actual substantive weapons bans– the ones signed into law by Presidents Reagan and Bush (41)– remain in effect. And by the way, it’s still illegal to manufacture a gun that can easily be converted into a fully-automatic weapon.
(For better illustrations, including some details that I didn’t know until just now, see http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/ )
The “assault weapons ban” was an insult to gun control. Dianne Feinstein should be glad it’s gone, because it lets her off the hook for writing a lousy statute. Maybe now she can write one that would achieve something if she managed to get it passed.
But you wouldn’t want people to learn the truth, would you?
Well, I do try to explain things, but you just don’t seem to be listening.
R. Maheras…then dont read it. I did, and found it very intersting.