Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteIt's the "he did it first" defense that I'm objecting to. Someone brings up a valid point and your answer is a question about something else.
I almost just choked. How do you think I feel everytime someone brings up Clinton to defend Bush?
There it is again.
edited to add: I agree that the tactic is used by both sides.
never pull low......unless you are
kallend 1,651
QuoteDon't you like to acknowledge the nastier parts of the First Family's history.
It's the "he did it first" defense that I'm objecting to. Someone brings up a valid point and your answer is a question about something else. You don't seem to give the straight answers that you demand from others.
Your first mistake is to assume that I'm defending FDR.
I was pointing out a fallacy in the logic of John Rich's defenders concerning the post he plagiarized, by pointing out that they do not condemn Prescott's behavior like they condemn FDRs. FDR helped the Brits, and Prescott helped the Nazis.
I don't subscribe to the "he did it first" defense at all. As I have frequently stated, I believe that both Clinton AND Bush are proven liars, just like Johnson and Nixon before them.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Michele 1
QuoteI don't subscribe to the "he did it first" defense at all
Kallend, he's not the first to plagiarize.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Kennedy 0
QuoteThe suggestion was made that dealing with Britain constituted an attack on Germany. I was just wondering if the converse was the case. Prescott Bush, GWB's grandfather, traded with the Nazis. Did that constitute an attack on Britain?
My point was in response to phillykev saying a declaration of war was equivalent to an attack. I never said it qualified as an attack. I asked him if he thought it did. I finished with "if you measure equally, the US made an enemy of Germany first."
I also see a difference between a country demanding rights while shipping supplies and a business doing business with a waring country. Do you not see that difference?
Do I think Bush of WWII times' dealings with the Nazis were an attack on Britain? No. I think they are on a completely separate level. Business' actions are judged by entirely different sets than actions of a country.
Do you think all commerical business with a waring country is an attack on their enemy?
Even if they did constitute an attack on Britian, who cares? What's so nasty about making your business successful in whatever circumstances you find yourself?
see first reply here
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kerry is a liar too. Are you voting for him?
never pull low......unless you are
Ron 7
QuoteIt's not hard to admit it at all. I just haven't heard him once say anything about being a war hero. I asked for anyone to show me where he did, and then you posted a report. In that report, that you posted, it said that he reluctantly talked about being in the war after having avoided the subject in previous interviews. Are you following me? Let me break it down for you.
No wonder you like this guy...You talk just like him.
You said "show me where he plays the war hero"...and I did.
Then you said "Well only after he was pushed into it.".....Which may be true...Or it could also be he set the whole thing up to make him look humble AND a war hero.
But him being humnble was NOT the issue...
You said "Show me him playing the war hero"...and I did...
Instead of saying "Yep, I guess he did"...You decided to negate it by trying to spin it that they made him....
Here is a simple fact. No one has to pull out anything from a briefcase. If he was really humble..He could have just said no.
Is it so hard to just stick to ONE topic without trying to spin it?
You said "show me him playing the war hero"...And I did.
You want to talk humble we can do that on the next set of posts.
Did you find it at all funny that it talked about him flying a plane in that post?
That whole artical was a campain ad.
I don't have an issue with that....It's legal. And it was a good artical if you like him.
It was not an objectional artical, it was very Pro Kerry.
So maybe he is modest...Or maybe he is just really good at projectiing an image.
His whole life has been about image....He has a good image.
But he can't stay on one side of a topic. And thats bad.
Ron 7
QuoteThere's no suggestion that Kerry fabricated intelligence for Bush
I never said that. I said that you seem to think its OK for Kerry to get bad intel and make a bad choice. But its not OK for Bush to do the same thing...When Bush does it he lied.
QuoteThe part about Roosevelt and Germany was untrue
And the rest of it?
Ron 7
QuoteNow you're claiming that he spit on war heros. I'd like to see evidence of that as well
How about the part where he said our heros were killing women and children for no reason. While it may not be actually spitting on them...He did slander them all. And his testimony at "winter Solider" was good enough for the vietcong to use it to tourture other heros.
Oh but not HIM of course only the other guys killed the wrong folks.
Ron 7
QuoteIt's such a simple question. Don't you like to acknowledge the nastier parts of the First Family's history.
You want to go there?
How about the Dems vavorite son...JFK.
Insider trading:
Quote"Joseph P. Kennedy had made his first big killing in the winter of 1923. For an outlay of only $24,000---on credit---he'd used insider information given him by Galen Stone and had reaped a profit of more than a half a million dollars---$675,000---in fact---on Pond Creek Coal Company shares. [...] Sitting in his office, [...] Joe Kennedy now indulged in financial larceny on vast an unseen scale, manipulating share pricess with other hands in secret stock pools designed specifically to hoodwink investors. His growing expertise neeted him a second fortune in the spring of 1924..." [p.51]
How about this:
QuoteKennedy may also have traded in illegal booze, although the evidence is circumstantial. His father had been in the liquor business before Prohibition, and Joe himself got into it (publicly, that is) immediately after repeal. Some believe the family business simply went underground during the dry years. He may have been strictly a nickel-and-dimer; Harvard classmates say he supplied the illicit booze for alumni events.
But there might have been more to it than that. In 1973 mob boss Frank Costello said he and Kennedy had benn bootlegging partners. Other underworld figures have also claimed Joe was in pretty deep. At least one write (John Davis, 1984) thinks bootlegging enabled Joe to earn his initial financial stake,
And this:
Quote"On June 28, 1934, President Roosevelt finally rewarded Kennedy for his work in the 1932 election campaign. Countering all objections with the words "it takes a thief to catch a thief," he appointed Joeseph P. Kennedy the first chairman of a new regulatory agency to tidy up the nation's stock market: the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. To the consternation of all, the notorious stock-market swindler Joeseph P. Kennedy would become stock-market reformer."
Ya know what they say about family history....You pay good money to find it out...And even more to hide it.
kallend 1,651
QuoteQuoteThere's no suggestion that Kerry fabricated intelligence for Bush
I never said that. I said that you seem to think its OK for Kerry to get bad intel and make a bad choice. But its not OK for Bush to do the same thing...When Bush does it he lied.
And the rest of it?
A recently retired Lt. Col from the Pentagon says that her office (OSP) was set up by Cheney/Rummy to massage the intel to the liking of Rummy/Cheney/Bush and go around the usual checks of CIA analysis.
They both heard bad intel, but only one of them is responsible for it's worthlessness.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,651
QuoteQuoteIt's such a simple question. Don't you like to acknowledge the nastier parts of the First Family's history.
You want to go there?
How about the Dems vaorite son...JFK.
.
Last time I heard, he was not running for president in 2004. Maybe you heard differently.
Old Joe Kennedy was a traitor, IMO.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 7
QuoteA recently retired Lt. Col from the Pentagon says that her office (OSP) was set up by Cheney/Rummy to massage the intel to the liking of Rummy/Cheney/Bush and go around the usual checks of CIA analysis.
I noticed the first part said set up by
I didn't see Bush listed there.QuoteCheney/Rummy
But you DID list him as a recipient of this info. Even you are saying that he didn't set up the office.
Also got a link?
Ron 7
QuoteLast time I heard, he was not running for president in 2004. Maybe you heard differently.
Old Joe Kennedy was a traitor, IMO.
Last I heard...Prescott Bush was not running either.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=940606#940606
I almost just choked. How do you think I feel everytime someone brings up Clinton to defend Bush? Kind of like you...
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=920650;search_string=clinton;#920650
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=878936;search_string=clinton;#878936
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=858146;search_string=clinton;#858146
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=653068;search_string=clinton;#653068
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=731765;search_string=clinton;#731765
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=832957;search_string=clinton;#832957
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=820705;search_string=clinton;#820705
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=676033;search_string=clinton;#676033
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=709645;search_string=clinton;#709645
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=692274;search_string=clinton;#692274
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites