|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 19, 2004 15:51:50 GMT -5
mms://media4.streamtoyou.com/gwb/risk_256k.wmv
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 23, 2004 19:05:03 GMT -5
Well, that explains a lot if you're buying into campaign ads. They are so full of utter distortions, it boggles the mind. *All* US voters should be dragged to WWW.FACTCHECK.ORG I was wondering wether you were referring to the wolves ad, now that one really had me scratching my head. And then you hear Bush say he's not running a campaign of fear, yeah right... The wolves ad focusses on the accusation also brought up in the ad linked to above, that Kerry proposed to cut intelligence spending after the 1st WTC attack. Never mind about the context! A misleading Bush ad criticizes Kerry for proposing to cut intelligence spending -- a decade ago, by 4%, when some Republicans also proposed cuts.Read it all @ www.factcheck.org/article291.html ! "Actually, the cut Kerry proposed in 1994 amounted to less than 4 percent, as part of a proposal to cut many programs to reduce the deficit. And in 1995 Porter Goss, who is now Bush’s CIA Director, co-sponsored an even strong deficit-elimination measure that would have cut CIA personnel by 20 percent over five years. When asked about that at his confirmation hearings he didn't disavow it." [...] "The “first terrorist attack” the ad refers to didn't happen September 11, 2001, as some listeners assume. It actually was more than a decade ago, in 1993, when a truck bomb went off in the parking garage under one of the World Trade Center towers. In fact, Kerry was supporting regular increases in intelligence spending for several years prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001." [...] "Total intelligence spending is a classified figure, but was estimated at the time to be $27 billion per year. So, the cut Kerry proposed amounted to an estimated 3.7 percent -- hardly a proposal to "slash" expenditures. That measure was debated on the Senate floor and on Feb 10,1994 it was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it. The following year Kerry introduced another deficit-reduction package, S.1290 (see "supporting documents, at right). This one would have lowered the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years starting in 1996. That would have amounted to a reduction of just over 1 percent of estimated intelligence spending. Not only was this proposed reduction a small one, it came at a time when it had just become known that one intelligence agency had been hoarding $1 billion in unspent funds from its secret appropriations. Kerry's proposal died without a hearing, but a similar Republican-sponsored measure eventually became law (see below).Saying that either of these proposals would “slash” spending is an exaggeration. Saying that a 4 percent or 1 percent cut would have “weakened America ’s defenses” is an opinion which the Bush campaign has a perfect right to state, but it is not a fact." [...] How liberal is John Kerry? Read the whole article on factcheck.org! www.factcheck.org/article284.htmlPolitical science professor Keith T. Poole :"Is Senator John Kerry a Liberal? Technically, Yes. Is he the most liberal member of the current or any Senate since the end of World War II? No. Is he an extreme Liberal. (sic) No. In fact he is a bit to the left of the mean of the Senate Democrats serving since 1937." [...] "Based on Poole's ratings, Brookings Institution authors Sarah Binder, Thomas Mann and Alan Murphy characterized Kerry as being "closer to the center of the Democratic Party than he is to the most liberal senators, including Mr. Kennedy." For more distortions: WWW.FACTCHECK.ORG
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Oct 25, 2004 9:48:01 GMT -5
Oh come on Bertine - don't muddy the waters with facts! I have to give the Bush organization a lot of credit. They can make subtle distortions in a Kerry sound bite, play it and make people believe that is what Kerry said and meant, and then no matter how many times the actual quote is played or explained the people remember only the distortion. Compared to them M. Moore is a rank amateur.
|
|
|
Post by botany on Oct 25, 2004 10:27:11 GMT -5
Oh come on Bertine - don't muddy the waters with facts! I have to give the Bush organization a lot of credit. They can make subtle distortions in a Kerry sound bite, play it and make people believe that is what Kerry said and meant, and then no matter how many times the actual quote is played or explained the people remember only the distortion. Compared to them M. Moore is a rank amateur. Yes, I agree with you completely. I don't really pay any attention to the political ads, being they are about 0.3% fact and 99.7% distortion/spin. Factcheck.org has been very interesting and helpful over the past 6 months or so. Paints a completely different picture of John Kerry than what the media and Bush/cronies paint. Sure, Kerry isn't perfect and without faults, and he also has ads spinning things completely out of proportion. But, factcheck has shown me that Kerry is not the flip flopper that the media and Bush has wrongfully led the people to believe. Spinning out of control, andy
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Oct 25, 2004 11:51:33 GMT -5
If you must judge the two candidates by their rhetoric, then you must make a determination on which of the two aligns most closely with your personal values.
Both Kerry and Bush are contradictions. Kerry is married to millions, but he says he will work for the middle class. He looks at foreign policy from a global perspective, not strictly from a US view. He is a catholic, but pro-choice and supports embryonic stem cell research. He speaks of forming a coalition to deal with Iraq, but is determined to renew the two-party talks with N. Korea. He supports healthcare reform, but ignores the costs of medical lawsuits. He claims to be able to decrease the unemployment, but at the same time reduce government spending.
How about Dubya? Was an alcoholic, now a born again Christian. Also came from money, but is unashamed of his tax cut for the wealthy. He’s less concerned with global opinions than national security. English is his second language (never had a first). Reversed a long standing policy on fair trade by subsidizing US steel. Dead set against anything other than pro-life, but doesn’t have qualms over death penalty or war.
Who would you choose? If I didn’t live in the US of A, I think I’d go for the John squared ticket. Being as I do reside here, I’ll go for the Texas cowboy. I always wanted to be one myself.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 25, 2004 12:05:03 GMT -5
Perception is everything, I suppose.
The FactCheck.org article clearly states that "The Journal did rank Kerry the most liberal senator for 2003 ".
This is a true statement which requires no sinister manipulation by the Bush campaign.
The article points out that this was based on economic policy only because Kerry never bothered to show up for 37 out of the 62 votes that year! Four issues come to mind for me.
1) When Bush has accused Kerry of being the most liberal senator from Massachusetts, he usually does it in the context of economic policy (raising taxes, etc); therefore, it is a true statement.
2) The fact that Kerry only showed up for 40% of votes is an alarming fact in and of itself. Can we take someone serious as a leader when he doesn't show up to actually represent his people as a senator?
3) Kerry is also liberal on social issues, as well - abortion being an obvious one. Anyone who tries to sugarcoat this fact is being dishonest.
4) Kerry is also liberal on foreign policy as well. I can't recall for sure, but I heard somewhere that he served in the Navy during Viet Nam; nevertheless, questionable service for 12 weeks 30 years ago does not automatically make him a foreign policy expert.
Are political ads sometimes over-the-top? Duh! Don't act like the DNC or especially its surrogate MoveOn.org hasn't distorted things.
Clay
|
|
|
Post by Perhaps on Oct 25, 2004 12:25:26 GMT -5
4) Kerry is also liberal on foreign policy as well. I can't recall for sure, but I heard somewhere that he served in the Navy during Viet Nam; nevertheless, questionable service for 12 weeks 30 years ago does not automatically make him a foreign policy expert. Bush, who did not have a passport, is qualified? The man cannot even find most countries on a map. And, by his own words, does not read about foreign events in the world press. Kerry is liberal? Does that mean upholding our international agreements instead of flaunting them?
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 25, 2004 12:53:21 GMT -5
Bush, who did not have a passport, is qualified? The man cannot even find most countries on a map. Gosh, it's a pleasure to converse with a person who has intimate knowledge of President Bush's geography and map skills. The point is that Kerry tries to make his Viet Nam service a foundation of his "qualifications" when it is not. And, by his own words, does not read about foreign events in the world press. There's this concept called "presidential briefings", which probably contain more information than the world press does, anyway. I'm sure he's a little too busy to worry about what Der Spiegel says. Kerry is liberal? Does that mean upholding our international agreements instead of flaunting them? Uh....no. If you actually read what I wrote, I pointed out that Kerry is rated as liberal based on his economic policies. His foreign policy fits more with the more liberal Democratic Party which would look to appease and cajole even in the face of outright hostility. Didn't Osama bin Laden declared war on us in 1996?
|
|
|
Post by Glad you enjoy it on Oct 25, 2004 15:26:52 GMT -5
Gosh, it's a pleasure to converse with a person who has intimate knowledge of President Bush's geography and map skills. The point is that Kerry tries to make his Viet Nam service a foundation of his "qualifications" when it is not. And my point is that Bush has absolutly nothing on which to base his qualifications. Here is someone who said: ''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army." But a lot of people mix up countries. We witnessed the concept of the PDB on August 6, 2001. There was not a lot of information. Even then it was ignored. Maybe a full A4 page is too much text. He is an American - he speaks and reads only English. Perhaps, but not being a nation it makes about as much sense as me declaring war on Shell Oil. The terrorist are still there. Bin Laden is still out there. Even after planning the worse terrorist attack on the US, bin Laden was unable to hold Bush's attention. But then, Bush does not remember stating that he was no longer concerned about bin Laden. He is hunting for terrorists!
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 25, 2004 17:10:34 GMT -5
I don't undestand why the UN doesn't just go get him. What are thy waiting for anyway?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 26, 2004 13:01:01 GMT -5
And my point is that Bush has absolutly nothing on which to base his qualifications. Why do I get the feeling that Bush could be a retired U.S. Army general and a member of Mensa and his opponents would still say he wasn't qualified? We witnessed the concept of the PDB on August 6, 2001. There was not a lot of information. Even then it was ignored. Maybe a full A4 page is too much text. The August 6 PDB did not contain specific new information, and it included false information as well. I don't think talking about "ignoring information" is the best approach, since Clinton did his best to ignore the threat for at least 5 years. He is an American - he speaks and reads only English. No kidding? Perhaps, but not being a nation it makes about as much sense as me declaring war on Shell Oil. If Shell Oil had publically declared war on us, then Clinton would have probably tried to ignore them, too. Of all his personal failings, his foreign policy legacy is the most pathetic. The terrorist are still there. Bin Laden is still out there. Even after planning the worse terrorist attack on the US, bin Laden was unable to hold Bush's attention. But then, Bush does not remember stating that he was no longer concerned about bin Laden. He is hunting for terrorists! This simply is untrue. Bush sent troops to Afghanistan which, by the way, just held free elections. bin Laden has not been seen in 3 years and the U.S. has not been attacked on our own soil since 9/11. His statement about not being worried about bin Laden meant that he knows that everything possible is being done. Only someone so desperate for a superficial sound-byte would try to claim that Bush doesn't "worry" about bin Laden and other terrorists.
|
|