Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77068)	6/13/2006 12:19:23 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Nadine - We'd better be careful. We're in grave danger of turning this thread into a place where people can actually discuss issues, without attacking one another. ;-) - Allen PS: Richnorth, rough_cut, and Nicholas, this goes for you, too. Let's all try to remember where we are. ;-)

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77068)	6/13/2006 12:38:11 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

>>Let's just say that if Kerry had the facts behind him, I think even he would have a much easier time defending himself.<< Nadine - Not necessarily. Let's take the "He voted against body armor for the troops" accusation that was leveled at Kerry during the campaign. This was based on the fact that he had voted against an 87 billion dollar allocation for the Iraq war, a package which among many other things included body armor for the troops. That was turned into an attack on his patriotism. Kerry was portrayed as not supporting the troops because he voted against that bill. Kerry's response was, "Actually, I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." Ouch! Open mouth, insert foot. Not a good line by any stretch, and one that was used to mock him for the rest of the campaign But the truth behind that stupid line is that in a procedural vote, he voted for the allocation. Then some provisions were added that he did not support, having to do with no-bid contracts for some items if I remember correctly. Because he didn't support those provisions, he voted against the final bill. So there's a case where the man didn't do anything wrong at all. He was sticking by his principles, and that was turned into an attack on his patriotism. (Classic Karl Rove tactics.) Yet even though the facts supported him, he couldn't come up with a better defense than ... well, it's so lame that I can't bring myself to retype it. What I'd say is that the accusations of a completely fabricated military record have not been proved, or even that well supported, and it really shouldn't be up to Kerry to prove that they are false. So if he does a crappy job of defending himself, how is that proof that the allegations are true? The burden of proof should lie with the accusers. What Kerry's inability to satisfactorily defend himself proves is that he's a bit of a doorknob, but that's all it proves. - Allen PS: Here's something for you to think about. Karl Rove has been accused of doing some absolutely hateful, vile, unethical and immoral things in past campaigns by a number of people, including Al Franken (in his most recent book, The Truth, with Jokes). He has not sued Al Franken, nor in any way defended himself against any of these charges. Does that mean the charges must therefore be true?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77068)	6/13/2006 5:07:26 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 81568

He decided some time ago that he should never or very rarely admit to a mistake as a matter of policy. I presume Bush realized the benefits of admitting to a mistake when he stood besides Tony Blair and admitted some mistakes were made on the Iraq war. He needs to recognize that even though admitting mistakes serves as political fodder to the opposition, it also wins over a lot of other people and that what matters the most to a politician. BUsh needs to learn from Clinton's mistakes: "I did not have sex with that woman," to "I am sorry. I chetad agaginst my wige. I brought harm to this nation through my actions."

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77068)	6/13/2006 12:13:23 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 81568

Every single Bush ad against Kerry was 100% lie. He had the exact same defense budget voting record as Zell Miller. That's why Zell went ballistic on TV, after Chris Matthews hit him with that fact. The 87 bill was a terrible bill and should not have been a blank check. Now we have no idea where that money went and we also know some 21 billion of our money is missing in Iraq. Just gone. Why are Bushies against the people knowing where their money is being spent? And why are Bushies against paying for all their spending? It's the height of reckless dishonesty.