| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Sorry Bush, I don't buy it.; (Does anybody?) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 23 2004, 10:26 PM (354 Views) | |
| Dr. Noah | Aug 24 2004, 11:18 AM Post #16 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
The majority of Americans didn't think so last time. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 24 2004, 11:22 AM Post #17 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Nor did they think that of Gore, if you'll remember... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Aug 24 2004, 11:34 AM Post #18 |
|
Admiral
|
Wichita, Not having seen Scarbourgh Country, it's difficult to discuss what you saw. I was unaware that Kerry had condemned anything (but then between being very busy and also having lost power twice on account of hurricane Charley - the second being for 36 hours over this past weekend - I haven't been able to keep up with everything going on lately). Based on what you said, maybe Kerry was not condemning the content of the ad, but the concept of the 527's? Therefore, his own similar statements were acceptable to him, but not the ad by moveon.org? ![]() Regarding "within seconds", that's highly unlikely even if there was coordination between the Kerry campaign and moveon.org (and I'm not suggesting there was). Again, I didn't see the program, but that sounds like a figure of speech or an exaggeration to me. It sounds like the real point was that Kerry's response was immediate. 24, You are right that Bush was condemning 527's in general. But I was under the impression that he did both. He first condemned specifically the SBVFT ads and then added his condemnation of all 527's. Wichita and 24, I didn't realize any SBVFT ads were still airing. Thanks for the info. I stand corrected about that. AB, Yes, this is more of a win for Bush. That's exactly why he did it. It's completely calculated and it's obvious. He stands to lose (and has suffered already) from the 527's airing ads against him. He has also already benefitted somewhat from the SBVFT ads. So now he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by condemning them all. And he gets the added benefit of appearing to be against even the ones that work to his advantage. But it's so transparent you could use it as window pane. 38957, I think you may have missed the point. I said nothing that contradicts your reply. My point wasn't about Bush condemning the ads, but his timing. Had he condemned them when the ads first appeared (within a day or two), I wouldn't be complaining at all. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Aug 24 2004, 12:23 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Bush can't run around fighting Kerry's battles for him. :lol: Anyway, it is SBVFT's right to make ads and books or whatever they want, just like moveon, etc. have the right to do the same thing. Political free speech. Is Bush supposed to run around condemning every crackpot out there? Why is Kerry not held to this standard? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Aug 24 2004, 12:53 PM Post #20 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Gore won the popular vote, which means the majority of Americans voted for him. That's a fact. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Aug 24 2004, 12:56 PM Post #21 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
^^ that we certainly shall.Maybe Bill missed my question - I'll paraphrase it for him -
I've not seen much debate here about the pros and cons of both men, only mud slinging and character assassination, where is the debate about there policies - or is SISTERTREK a Presidential policy debate free zone ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 24 2004, 12:57 PM Post #22 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
No, it means a PLURALITY of Americans voted for him. Geez! (A plurality means that less than 50%, but more than someone else. Get it??) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Aug 24 2004, 01:00 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
We had no popular election for President of the United States. We had 50 separate popular elections. It is poor statistics and deceptive to take totals from these 50 elections and infer any kind of national popular vote. Just whining by the loosers. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Aug 24 2004, 01:21 PM Post #24 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
It's also deceptive to decide not to count all the votes and call it an election. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 24 2004, 01:40 PM Post #25 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
^^^^ Yes, tell Al Gore that. Why do you keep rehashing the same tired, old argument. Your viewpoint was in error the first time, and nothing has changed that now, unless we've somehow all been teleported to a parallel universe. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Aug 24 2004, 02:46 PM Post #26 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I agree. And in a Sistertrek first, in one post I will agree with both a righty and a lefty. (Both individuals I usually disagree with too! )
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Aug 24 2004, 02:55 PM Post #27 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Sisko, I think it has been adequately shown that there is a possibility that votes from both sides of the spectrum were missed (Florida Blacks and Military people) Who is to say which would possibly have tipped the scales? What happened overall was wrong - but it's done and over with and it could be argued that the two sets of disenfranchised votes cancel each other out and the results would have been exactly the same. It really is time to get over it. The only thing that should be taken from that experience is that you (the US) should fix the problems so they don't occur again. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| cptjeff | Aug 24 2004, 04:59 PM Post #28 |
|
Captain of the Enterprise-J
|
^some millitary people vote democratic- they are the poor ones, and a democrat's less likly to lead the country into a forign occupation. (generally) but did you also notice in the same statment bush said "I belive John Kerry serverd his country well in Vietnam." he did mention that he also thought it didn't matter to much, because this was about the war on terror, but isn't that interesting... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 24 2004, 05:11 PM Post #29 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
You have either your sources mixed up, or you are trying to say too much in a reply. Maybe one military member in five votes Democrat, and I'm being exceptionally generous. Realistically, on a consistent basis, maybe one in seven.
I guess we can forget all about the occupation of Japan and Germany (truman), Vietnam (Johnson), and Bosnia and Haiti (Clinton). President Bush's actual quote was this:
What is that? That is CLASS speaking. Compare this to the Kerry campaign's "Again the president did the wrong thing today,'' said Chad Clanton, a [Kerry] campaign spokesman. "He has refused to specifically condemn the smear campaign against John Kerry's military record.''" (What a bunch of whiners.) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Aug 24 2004, 06:16 PM Post #30 |
|
Time to put something here
|
So Bush does the right thing, and still he is chastised for it.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2


Therefore, his own similar statements were acceptable to him, but not the ad by moveon.org? 
that we certainly shall.
)
3:23 AM Jul 11