John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, the problem Bush's side got into was the level of vehemence of this attack: heck, its exactly what repugs wanted, getting so much press and causing damage- but there is a price to pay for it.
After all, none of MoveOn's ads have gotten this level of notoriety, for a reason- they aren't as vehement., or if they are, the "liberal news channels" don;t rush to create an echo chmaber and make sure everyone knows the smear like the Knightridder papers and Newscorp divisions do.

So now the arguement turns from equal coverage issue to one of efficacy of the attack?

Thats a weak counter-arguement considering we both were in agreement that this was going to be a mud bath from both sides.

Admit it NYT is so far in bed with Kerry they cease to be a reliable source.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Admit it NYT is so far in bed with Kerry they cease to be a reliable source.

Not likely.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


So now the arguement turns from equal coverage issue to one of efficacy of the attack?

Ahh, yes. Welcome to the 21st century old man- its all about the level of media coverage and media hype.

Thats a weak counter-arguement considering we both were in agreement that this was going to be a mud bath from both sides.

Yes, but there is mud, and there is sticking a few stones and broken glass and extra-nasty bits into the mudball to do seriously nasty damage.

Admit it NYT is so far in bed with Kerry they cease to be a reliable source.

to tired strawman.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Probably more telling than anything else is the responses from the prospective candidates. Faced with unrelenting attack from Dems including F911, Bush chose to simply say "I respect the right of these people to say what they will" (or words to that effect). Given the little girl whining and demands of Kerry to have the books pulled etc. which one has weathered the pressures of mud slinging better?

[GePap]

Oh, god, that whinny crap about F9/11....

Given the little girl whining and demands of Kerry to have the books pulled etc. which one has weathered the pressures of mud slinging better?

The difference between the two, besides format, is the ability to substantiate. I don;t know if you have seen F9/11- I myself was not the biggest fa and I said it, but Moore weaves the very words and images of the Bush admin., and can show documents which he then weaves into his own editorial piece. That is what F9/11 is, a huge 2 hour op-ed against Bush.

This is a campaign ad making claims, very serious claimsabout his credibility, which happen to, oops, be unsubstantiated..darn.....

I am sure Ann Coulter in her column says much worse things about Kerry than this group of Bozo's, but like F9/11, those columns are giant op-eds. In the end Moore makes a case with a few claims, BUT he does not say "THIS IS THE TRUTH!" These ads do that- there is always a difference in scale.

I still find it absurd you and Ming and others try to conflate F9/11 with these ads. You know, a few conservatives tried to play this documentary against Moore- last time I checked it flopped, no one cared. In the end, F9/11 was a commercial and political venture, while the ad. was only a political stunt.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, the problem Bush's side got into was the level of vehemence of this attack: heck, its exactly what repugs wanted, getting so much press and causing damage- but there is a price to pay for it.
After all, none of MoveOn's ads have gotten this level of notoriety, for a reason- they aren't as vehement., or if they are, the "liberal news channels" don;t rush to create an echo chmaber and make sure everyone knows the smear like the Knightridder papers and Newscorp divisions do.

But let's remember to throw F911 into the picture...
While "some" have argued it's not the same, that's a lame argument

Again, both sides are EQUALLY AS BAD... there is NO moral high ground here for either side.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
In the end Moore makes a case with a few claims, BUT he does not say "THIS IS THE TRUTH!"

By virtue of his claim to prosecute anyone for libel he has in fact claimed "THIS IS THE TRUTH!".

The fact that he can't followup on his claim says volumes about the veracity of his own misrepresented work.

Besides your response has little to do with the way in which the prospective candidates actually responded to critique.

Awaiting the obligatory Bush had his myrmidons do his dirty work in crying foul.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ming
Again, both sides are EQUALLY AS BAD... there is NO moral high ground here for either side.

That +10 Shield of Cynicism works wonders, doesn't it?

[Arrian]

Yes, I do trust Bush. I feel his honesty and sincerity distinquish him from both is predecessor who was and is a notorious liar, and Kerry, who is apparently has no character or integrity whatsoever.

That you believe this is incredible to me. That a solid chunk of the voting public (somewhere near 50% of them) believes this scares the **** out of me.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by JohnT
That +10 Shield of Cynicism works wonders, doesn't it?

Damn Straight

Over time, I've learned to believe the worst... I'm more likely to be pleasently surprised, and will rarely be disappointed

[JohnT]

Just keep it away from the little ones... trust is good for them.

[Ming]

Originally posted by JohnT
Just keep it away from the little ones... trust is good for them.

My little ones are no longer really little.
My 16 year old is probably as cynical as I am (good for her) and my 9 year old is starting to realize that real life isn't a fantasy movie or book. She is making good progress

[Jon Miller]

so you are raising them up to be republicans?

how...

Evil



Jon Miller

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


By virtue of his claim to prosecute anyone for libel he has in fact claimed "THIS IS THE TRUTH!".

The fact that he can't followup on his claim says volumes about the veracity of his own misrepresented work.

Besides your response has little to do with the way in which the prospective candidates actually responded to critique.

Awaiting the obligatory Bush had his myrmidons do his dirty work in crying foul.

Yet again- he said he would attack people for libel if they claimed he made claims he did not. Lets take the "7 minutes"- he never says "Bush was thinking this", he gave 'posibilities' and used it as a vehicle for his Saudi portions.

As for how each candidate takes the attacks- yes, Bush hs his minions do the talking- the echo chamber in Fox and other righting pieces about F9/11 was immense.

Bush gets to use surrogates for everything- that is one of the perks of incumbancy and the presidency. That and a friendly press.

[Jon Miller]

personally I wish I had seen less and was less cynical and more innocent

it is a state of mind that I wish to return to, and sometimes succeed

despite the diappointment, you enjoy life more

Jon Miller