I don't have a good link to a transcript for the voter exchange. I have streaming audio on the member side of the Rush Limbaugh site. Yes, I know, he's the leader of the right wing attack machine but he doesn't manufacture audio clips of people. If you recall it I will discuss what I think is foot in mouth material. The quote of actually voting for something before voting against it should stand on its own. Are you familiar with the quote? What I mean by foot in mouth is Bush would fairly or unfairly have been criticized for similar blunders. To me it's just an issue of fairness. Also, I should point out I made the initial post that turned into this debate when I was posting, how should I say, satirically.

------------------
former TACC outcast

Wookie: I could barely understand a word. How is Clinton responsible for Bush sending troops off to war without the neccessary equipment? How is Kerry obligated to give away 87 billion dollars to dubious military and industrial causes because a pathetically small fraction would provide equipment for the troops? How is a temporary and limited suspension of a tax cut a tax raise? (Heck, since every cent of Bush's deficit will have to be paid back plus interest with our tax dollars, Kerry was actually going to save everyone money in the long run.) And why in the world do you think the US should spend even more on the military than it does already?

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited March 18, 2004).]

Clinton would not be soley responsible however I fail to see how Bush could be held responsible for inheritting an underequiped military. Of course the military was as well trained as it ever was. That's a testament to the leaders in the service. No ammount of, or lack of, funding is going to affect the tennacity and fighting spirit of those of us wearing the uniform to fight to protect and defend freedom.

To address just that issue that you raised. You are of an opinion that companies that provide products and services to the military are evil, money hungry corporations. Even if they are, which I am not agreeing to, the military still deserves the resources. I can't believe that any reasonable person would agree with that.

------------------
former TACC outcast

I'm afraid I'm not, but if you're unable to provide a video clip of it, I'm not interested in this line of debate.



Underequipped, yet it was more than able to fight two (successful) military campaigns within two years?

Clinton merely streamlined the military from its days as a Cold War juggernaut. He did little, if anything, to its detriment.


-Fox

Haha! Quite ironic that on a thread about lies and deception you post that that quote was in fact said by robin williams. Check your sources bub, and, while your at it, watch some lewis black comedy, because he said that, not robin williams



------------------
"Just remember -- No matter how bad things get, Northern Minnesota will always be there"
-- Garrison Keeler

This is news to me. Have any more shocking revelations about opinions I didn't even know I had?

I believe in wise, cost-effective investments, not government handouts. The military is a government office like any other: the goal is to put as little money as possible in and get the required functionality. Mushy patriotic sentiments are BS. Since the military only has limited use in the modern world, the military's budget needs to be slashed to the bone.

So you don't think that corporations involved in military contracts are greedy, generally speaking?

Military spending should be increased. Recent events of the last few years have shown what FireFox's definition of streamlining the military along with treating terrorism as a crime are responsible for.

And how is it that you are knowledgable of what Clinton's military policy has been responsible for, FireFox?

Regarding the video clip you would like you can read about the ad and the discussion about the 87 billion at the link below. Again, I was being sarcastic when I started the debate but the only point that I'm making is that his for/against statement is the kind of statement Bush would have been heavily criticized for. Of course he had his reasons for voting with the minority against the funding.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114581,00.html


------------------
former TACC outcast

What recent events? Are you saying we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan?



I base my argument on the fact that our military not only succeeded in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it was done with resounding success. If the military were crippled, as you claim, our recent campaigns would not have been as successful.



So now you're backpedaling on an argument because you can't provide sound evidence by calling it "sarcasm"?

As for your Fox News source, the ads took Kerry's words out of context, so I consider it only a secondary source, not to mention biased.


-Fox

I haven't backpeddled on anything. For a period of a few days I posted in a "mock-liberal" fashion out of amusement. My initial post criticizing MoveOn and Kerry in this thread was during that short period.

The FoxNews source is a report on the ad and then accurately characterizes Kerry's statement which was made in response to the previous Bush ad.

I was clear that my intention was to point out a blunder.

Can you tell me when I stated that our military was crippled? I haven't done so and I'm not the one that brought up the body armor anyway. I wouldn't have complained about that anyway since I had body armor when I deployed to Iraq. Of course we saw overwhelming success in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's actually the democrats that are arguing that we went off ill equiped. Just seems odd to claim that in a period of just 2 years after GWB took office the military would suddenly have been ill equiped. John Kerry has made the claim. Not I. Despite Kerry's voting against every major weapon system we use we still have them. There were enough reasonable people in congress to pass the funding we needed.

edit - Oh, and did you notice that that is an Associated Press story you're calling biased? It's always biased if it's not anti-Republican, isn't it?

------------------
former TACC outcast

[This message has been edited by Wookie06 (edited March 19, 2004).]

BS. I asked you to prove your claims that Kerry "has his foot in his mouth", which you failed to do so. Now, you claim it was all a joke?



It's not accurate if the ads take Kerry's words out of context....







Fox News was citing the story, and I'll appreciate it if you refrain from further strawman attacks. I don't consider it unbiased if it's only "anti-republican".


-Fox



[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited March 19, 2004).]

The "author" of the story is AP. They're not "citing" anything. Many news organizations use articles from other organizations. If you read newspapers you will clearly see AP stories used in the same manner. Can you tell me how they took his words out of context?

The quote about "underequiped" military is in response to the idea that somehow it became underequiped since Bush took office. If the Democrat argument is that it was underequiped then I don't see how Bush can be blamed for it. In any event the fact is that the military was lacking necessary equipment during the Clinton years. Bush's administration has worked hard to resolve the issue and many of us in the military have seen more new equipment in the last two years than ever before. I still don't see how you got "crippled" out of that.

No, my post was not a joke. I was posting in a satirical manner however my point is that if Bush was criticized for saying "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," people would be laughing and pointing to his apparent stupidity. Kerry is making these kind of misstatements and the same does not happen. My intention was not to debate the reason he said what he did. In actuality all of these politicians are going to make misstatements. You can't help but do so when you speak as much as they do. They just don't seem to be treated the same.

------------------
former TACC outcast

Ack. sorry about that. unfortunatly i haven't seen either in a bit and so i guess i got them messed up.

------------------
"No good can ever come from staying with normal people"
-Outlaw Star
"Some people play tennis. I erode the human soul"
-Tycho, Penny Arcade
"I'm a Cannabal-Vegitarian. I will BBQ an employee if there is no veggie option"
-DX:IW

The article discusses Bush's campaign ads, however, which take Kerry's statements out of context, like I said.



I would have to see the ads in question, to be honest. However, I doubt they would be able to include the context of each of the statements they cite that were made by Kerry.



I wouldn't argue that it's underequipped, except that there are misplaced priorities, namely personal body protection, etc.



Again you contradict yourself in the same post:



Sounds like crippled to me.



Agreed on that, but you still haven't backed your argument with sources that Kerry had his foot in his mouth.


-Fox

I understand why you're equating what I said to crippled but that's not my intention. For example, parts to repair vehicles were hard to come by. Stuff like that. I wouldn't go so far as to call it crippling.

I believe in the AP story it reports what the Kerry camp has to say about the quote. In that regard it is fair because it tells their side. I'll admit that I could be wrong but I'm too lazy to scroll back up and click the link.

I'm guilty of not writing very clear posts sometimes in this thread and I apologize for that but I'll just end my argument like this: It seems that in order for you to be convinced that Kerry made a blunder in speech you want definite sources to be able to analyze what he really meant, etc. I've only seen one person in this thread even show a hint of problem with the way the MoveOn Rumsfeld ad cut in and out. Rumsfeld is a very articulate and straight forward man and the reaction in this thread to a partisan attack ad is amazing. Now I know that's not the media but similar things seem to happen to GOP guys in the media while most Democrat feau peauxs (sp?) go meagerly challenged at best.

Anyways, like I said, I got into the specific debate on Kerry based on my insincere first post which made it kind of hard to logically follow up.

BTW, I wonder if you saw the "Day with Rumsfeld" on Greta's show on FoxNews. It was pretty good and he had some very frank things to say about Iraq at the end.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Wookie, the ad didn't cut in and out. It cut short Rumsfeld's response because a. they might be planning to run the ad as TV commercial and advertising time is expensive and b. it made it appear that Rumsfeld was unable to make a response to his obvious inconsistancy. Which, strangely enough, he wasn't. There's a full transcript here if you're interested: basically, he claims that WMDs might still be found and that Hussein didn't cooperate before the war even though, you know, he did.

It makes you wonder how he'll pretend that comment didn't happen.

Neither would I, though you were the one to imply it. They were simple supply shortages, which every military experiences from time to time. It's not attributable to Clinton nor Bush.



I expect nothing less.



No. I prefer to get my news from less biased sources.


-Fox

I won't argue that FoxNews isn't biased with you. You find that it is and I find that it is one of the least biased. We'll just disagree.

Ictus, I'm not going to defend Rumsfeld but the commercial, as political commercials do cuts in after the topic was initiated and then ends before the explanation is given. I'll go look at the transcript in a minute. Thanks for the link.

Jon' C, who and which comment specifically are you referring to?

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Thanks again for that link. I don't have a huge problem with it. Granted I come from a camp that has no problem with Operation Iraqi Freedom. I also realize that, while the current administration seems to lack the balls to point this out, WMDs were not made as the sole reason for going to Iraq. Rumsfeld blunderred by saying he didn't know of using that terminology but the fact that he had said that noone else posed a more immediate threat doesn't actually prove any points to me other than even he can be tripped up.

Fox, I want to go back to my bringing up the FNC show. No matter what networked would have done it, it would have been softball because it was a 'spend the day with the Defense Secretary' type deal. My point is that it was still very informative and Rumsfeld was quite frank at the end with some questions dealing with WMDs. I just thought you might have been interested.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

You mean like any other media source that is liberal biased?

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Since when?



Actually, intitially, WMDs WERE the sole reason for going to Iraq. The Bush Administration made their case for the noncompliance of Iraq long before a whisper was heard about the so called 'Iraqi Freedom.' Ironically, the shift to 'Iraqi Freedom' came about around the time Bush supposedly found out about that Pentigon report that clearly states that they did not believe Iraq to have WMDs.



Well, what it SHOULD point out to you is that he cooporated in the Bush Administrations deception aimed at conviencing congress that a war with Iraq is neccessary due to the "Iminant Threat" of Iraq due to its WMD capabilities...WHICH WAS TOTALLY FALSE. They keep claiming that 'our best intelligence indicated that Iraq was capable or near capable of using WMDs against us or our allies', which is also totally false (as evident by the CIA report that was leaked). In fact the IAEA announced early on that they had no evidence to support the Bush Administrations claims and also indicated that if Iraq did have such WMDs, they didn't have a delivery system for it anyhow.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a truly unbiased source. However, for politics, the best source for exposing the flaws of the other, is the opposing side. So, seeing that the current administration is Republican/conservitive, Democratic/liberal sources would be best for exposing the facts Republican/Conservitive sources would refrain from releasing.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

You're better than that, Avenger. Don't put words into my mouth. When I say I prefer less biased sources, I mean it.


-Fox

Ok this may be a bit off current topic, but don't say that 500 deaths or so is all that bad (in Iraq, about a 1 year war so far, lets say) when compared to the millions of abortions performed annually, legally in the U.S.

------------------
nil nip nada zip zero naught lip zil

I think Avengers point was that your not really going to find a creditible unbiased source on this issue. Yes, there are a lot of websites that claim to be unbiased, but it's often hard to tell if they really are or not. I think my responds to Avenger's point suffeciently covered this.



------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

There shouldn't of been any.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited March 21, 2004).]

Regardless, I was not going to allow him to put words into my mouth.



Find somewhere else to troll, please.


-Fox

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited March 21, 2004).]

But he wasn't. That's what Friend14 was trying to get across to you, but apparently you missed that as well...



WTH? He's not trolling. He's giving a statistical comparison.

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

Or, for that matter, one who wanted to improve anything.

------------------
"Why aren't I'm using at these pictures?" - Cloud, 4/14/02

A very pointed one, it certainly wasn't a broad lament, it was more like... what's that expression...

Putting words in people's mouths!

Friend14, you gave the primary reason in your own post. Noncompliance. I'm not going to bother with any of your other rigidly held beliefs.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

No, you don't seem to understand, so I won't continue my points further. And, for the record, their not 'beliefs' their the facts, you'd be wise to learn the difference. You are being sorely mislead and lied to by your superiors. It's time for you to wake up and take a hard look around you.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited March 22, 2004).]

Not at all. Again, I refer to Avenger's original post:



I did *not* say that, nor did I imply it.



Trying to non-sequitur the topic into a piece of flame-bait is not trolling?


-Fox

It's jsut that there are very few conservative leaning media sources and the majority of what's out there is liberal leaning. If there are any middle ground new agencies or sources out there, I'd love to know what they are. And I truly mean this. I'm not being sracastic or anything here.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Since you are going to be condescending ...

First off, you don't have a clue what any of my superiors have to say about anything. Unless of course you're talking about our elected and appointed officials. Then you, obviously, only hear what you want to hear.

You seemed to have a problem with my acknowledging that Rumsfeld is articulate and straight forward. Because you disagree with the man is no reason not to acknowledge the obvious. That seems to me to be a rigidly held belief of yours and not a fact.

Your opinion that the current administration misled the congress due to WMD capabilities is a rigidly held belief. This is where my problem with the administration lies with regards to this issue. The reasoning seemed clear to me. Iraq was in violation of numerous resolutions. That is an undisputed fact. The true capabilities were unknown. We only had intelligence to rely on. The UN believed the intelligence, the current administration believed the intelligence, the former administration believed the intelligence, and the congress believed the intelligence. Those are facts. Now it is perfectly reasonable to debate the course of action that was taken but YOU hold rigid beliefs of deception that I won't bother to debate with you.




------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Prove it. Prove that Iraq had violated numerous resolutions within a month of the US invasion.

You see, you've bought into a Big Lie. You just recited nearly word for word the standard administration response for the past couple months, despite the fact that it is transparently false.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited March 22, 2004).]

Now all of the sudden Saddam hadn't been acting in defiance of the UN. This is why it is hard for me to take debates with many liberals seriously. There are definitely some smart liberals here to debate but this is dillusional. Everyone from the US government to the Secretary General of the UN to Hans Blix said Saddam was not cooperating. I guess they all should have talked to you.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Wookie: Find one request Blix made which wasn't met. He said relatively early on that Iraq was fully cooperating in process and was providing unlimited access to all of the sites the inspectors wanted to visit.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited March 22, 2004).]

ROFL. Pot calling the kettle black?



Please provide proof of Rumsfeld EVER being articulate and straight forward. It's not so much the man as it is the position that he holds. Though many who have held his position have been far more articulate.



Wrong, the UN was never completely convienced. Thus why it was a "Coalition" police action and not a "UN" police action like bombing during the Clinton administration.

And you claim I hold regid beliefs of deception? Consider this a wake-up call. If I had beleived the Bush Adminstration from the get go when they first started going after Iraq, I might of re-enlisted to fight in a war I believed in. But sorry, I'm not going to throw my life on the line for a lying Administration who wage wars under false propaganda.

BTW, for the record; I'm conservitive, not liberal.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

UN action would have happene if Germany and France had not been voting in favor of themselves rather than the greater good. Germany and France sought to lose millions in government contracts with the Saddam Hussein government (business contracts). France and Germany's vpte against war had nothing to do with higer moral standards.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.