Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Perhaps you should wait more than 10 days before calling someone out on a topic that has been discussed here ad nauseum for 2 years. That, or go back and read the thousands of posts to catch up.

Just a tip. I hope you stay.

I don't think that you discuss topics; you just seem like a robot who regurgitates what it reads in the press. Since you don't seem to have much credibility around here, I'm not going to page through your past posts to find where you claim to have answered these questions. Is it that hard for you to restate your positions? Or is it that pre-emptive war is a political tool, and you just don't want to have to say that?

[dtb]

Originally posted by bilmore
[List of alleged Kerry "lies".]
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20041015.shtml

As your prior salvos against non-right-wing media outlets have shown that you are interested in obtaining information from the most non-partisan sources available, I am heartened to know that this information comes indirectly from The Heritage Foundation, a true bastion of non-partisanship.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I should let this go, but I can't:

Club, the "substantive" piece you cite was written anonymously by someone who feared the Democrats would kill him (or worse!) if his true identity were revealed:

"Why don't you print your real name in this article?

"I am accusing Gore's team of despicable and scandalous behavior. The true extent of their plan to overthrow the election has not yet been revealed and I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog."

http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/12.htm


S_A_M

P.S. From now on, better rely on Hank to do the Internet research for your side.

Some times it's hard to see the forest from the trees, isn't it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by mmm3587
Since you don't seem to have much credibility around here . . . .

Intentional irony, right?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by dtb
As your prior salvos against non-right-wing media outlets have shown that you are interested in obtaining information from the most non-partisan sources available, I am heartened to know that this information comes indirectly from The Heritage Foundation, a true bastion of non-partisanship.

Can't argue with the specifics, huh?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by mmm3587
I don't think that you discuss topics; you just seem like a robot who regurgitates what it reads in the press. Since you don't seem to have much credibility around here, I'm not going to page through your past posts to find where you claim to have answered these questions. Is it that hard for you to restate your positions? Or is it that pre-emptive war is a political tool, and you just don't want to have to say that?

You may be right. But stick around a while. Your views may change.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
A start:

"Moderator: You have a new plan.

Senator Kerry: Can I just say here Chris for one moment that I have a new plan?

Moderator: Er... exactly. (he gestures but she does not say anything) What is it?

Senator Kerry: Where? (looks round)

Moderator: No, no. Your new plan.

Senator Kerry: Oh, what is my plan?

Moderator: Yes.

Senator Kerry: Oh what is my plan that it is. Well Chris you may well ask me what is my plan.

Moderator: I am asking.

Senator Kerry: Good for you. My word yes. Well Chris, what is it that it is - this plan of mine. Well, this is what it is - my plan that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine.

Moderator: (beginning to show signs of exasperation) Yes, I know it's yours, what is it?

Senator Kerry: Where? Oh, what is my plan? This is it. (clears throat at some length) My plan that belongs to me is as follows. (clears throat at great length) This is how it goes. The next thing I"m going to say is my plan. Ready?

Moderator: Yes!

Senator Kerry: My plan by J Kerry. Brackets Senator, brackets. This plan goes as follows and begins now. I will spend more at the beginning, still more in the middle and then more again at the end. That is my plan, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.

(apologies to Monty Python)

http://www.interocitor.com/archives/000444.html

One commentator pointed out that the debate was more fun if, every time Kerry said he had a plan, you pretended that he instead said, "I have a girlfriend in Canada."

[dtb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Can't argue with the specifics, huh?

I can, but there's really no point -- you'll believe "your guy's" specifics, and I'll believe "my guy's".

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by dtb
I can, but there's really no point -- you'll believe "your guy's" specifics, and I'll believe "my guy's".

Do you really mean to say that, in spite of the actual numbers showing that Kerry's assertions are out-and-out untrue, you'll continue to believe them because he's "your guy"?

You're right- there's no point.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Apologies. I've clicked the link now and reviewed the document as a whole. Do you have a problem with preventing voter fraud? And, if you're in a jurisdiction where the voting is expected to be close but all election apparatus is controlled by the other side, wouldn't you want to create awareness on this issue?

Of course I don't have a problem with preventing voter fraud. But this goes far beyond that. It is dirty politics of the lowest variety, and I can't believe you are defending this.

From the link we have learned:

THE REPUBLICAN RECORD ON VOTER INTIMIDATION - THIS YEAR ALONE

Yesterday
Reports surfaced in Nevada, Oregon and potentially other states of the RNC paying half a million dollars to a company who was ripping up democratic voter registration forms. These activities are currently under investigation.

Last week
A former Republican Party executive filed a bogus lawsuit, which was dismissed, trying to knock 17,000 Democratic voters off the voter rolls in Nevada. He told the Las Vegas Review Journal – "I am looking to take Democrats off the voter rolls."

July
Republican official John Pappageorge told the Detroit Free Press, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote we’re going to have a tough time in this election cycle."

I note there are no links substantiating these claims, much like there was nothing to substantiate the claims of intimidation in Florida. That said, I have heard that some of this is going on on both sides, and that is extremely unfortunate and should be stopped immediately and the guilty should be thrown in jail to rot. But the mere fact that the site leads with this stuff is evidence that they've been caught red-handed and are now in spin mode.

Step (i) under Section II. (2) (hey, this is a pretty long document containing a lot of issues not addressed by drudge) calls for:

"Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state"

If the Republicans haven't used any voter intimidation tactics in the past, the rest of the steps don't really mean anything. If the Rs don't want to see memoranda like this in the future, they should intimidate fewer voters, particularly those from readily identifiable ethnic groups.

I have no problem with part 1. It's part 2 that is offensive.

Catch up on your reading. You may have to go outside Posner to understand why African Americans feel so threatened.

This is not 1960. It is 2004. The major reason why they feel threatened is because the DEMs have been stroking the unsubstantiated claim of voter intimidation from 2004. There was a complete justice department investigation of this right after the 2004 election. They found NO EVIDENCE of voter intimidation or suppression. But facts don't matter in this country anymore. We have truly become a nation of spin.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I note there are no links substantiating these claims, much like there was nothing to substantiate the claims of intimidation in Florida.

Ye gods, are you blind? There was a STATE TROOPER parked in the same city as a polling place! Republican operatives, skillfully disguised as Democratic election supervisors, were ENFORCING RULES! Republican voters were allowed to BLOCK DOORS as they walked in and out of polling places! Public officials made announcements to the effect that ineligible persons COULD NOT VOTE!

We need UN supervision.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I note there are no links substantiating these claims, much like there was nothing to substantiate the claims of intimidation in Florida.

Define "substantiate," because the allegation in Nevada came from an employee who saw the registrations being destroyed, not from Dems who see the boogey man everywhere.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Back in the day we were yin and yan of the cheap shot, snide reply and trivial arguments. But lately you've been getting all substantive on me.

244. Heeeeeere's... Cliffy!
gs: Johnny Carson (Himself) Frances Sternhagen (Esther Clavin) Joshua Mostel (Cue Card Guy) Nicolas Mize (Security Guard) Angel Harper (Audience Member) Doc Severinsen (Himself) Paul Willson (Paul Krapence)

Norm tells Cliff a little white lie about Carson using Cliff's material on The Tonight Show, then regrets it when Cliff comes up with two tickets to Burbank. Meanwhile Sam and Woody install a satellite dish at Cheers.


b: 07-May-1992 pc: 243 w: Ken Levine & David Isaacs d: James Burrows

NOTE: Diane is mentioned by Sam in a heart to heart with Woody. He mentions that their relationship would have ended with him in the electric chair.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by dtb
I can, but there's really no point -- you'll believe "your guy's" specifics, and I'll believe "my guy's".

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

On this, you can just say, "your sources suck." Saves time. I'm not trying to be a timmy or anything, I'm just trying to help you out since you're new to this board.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Since the Heritage Foundation doesn't pay me to spout crap to help the re-election of President Bush, I don't have the time to research this the way the original author did. So I'll just ask a few questions.

Originally posted by bilmore
Economy and Jobs

· Kerry claimed that during the Bush administration, “1.6 million jobs [were] lost.” In truth, the figure is half that. Only 800,000 net jobs have been lost, and even that number is widely expected to be revised downward to 600,000. Considering that 9/11 wiped out 1 million jobs right away, and 1.5 million within a year—all coinciding with the inherited recession and the stock market correcting its irrational exuberance—Bush’s record on this count is, in fact, impressive.

Note that Kerry didn't say "net," and bilmore's source did. Coincidence?

Bush's record -- "impressive" in the sense of being the worst record in 70 years, or is a different word more fitting?

And enough about the excuses about the hand that he was dealt -- given that we are now 2,700,000 jobs below where the White House predicted we'd be when it sold the tax cuts, there can't really be any dispute that the White House's policies have been a collosal failure in the jobs department, right?

[QUOTE]· Kerry: “He’s the only president to have incomes of families go down for the last three years.” According to official U.S. Commerce Department figures, per-capita after-tax income is up 6% since December 2000—and that’s not even counting the results from the economic growth of 2004.

Is it possible that Kerry was talking about real income (after inflation), and that bilmore's source is conveniently ignoring inflation?

· Repeating a populist—and untrue—line from his stump speeches, Kerry said, “The jobs the president is creating pay $9,000 less than the jobs that we’re losing.” This sounds like a devastating indictment, and it plays right into the urban legend that disappearing manufacturing jobs are replaced by burger-flippers. According to the nonpartisan FactCheck.org, “Higher-paid occupations, like managers (who can be in any industry) and health professionals, are growing faster.” This claim is largely based on Federal Reserve of Chicago study released last month.

But this isn't responsive, is it? Without supporting evidence, bilmore's source calls Kerry's statement an urban legend, and then shifts to talk about rates of increase instead. (Think about it this way -- the fastest growing counties tend to be those with the smallest population, while larger counties add more population, but aren't growing as fast.)

· In perhaps the most flagrant lie of the night, Kerry charged, “Under President Bush, the middle class has seen their tax burden go up and the wealthiest’s tax burden has gone down. Now that’s wrong.” No, Kerry’s wrong. The average family of four earning $40,000 has seen an average tax reduction of $1,900. (Bush said $1,700 in the debate.) Either way, that constitutes a staggering 90% reduction from their previous income tax burden. And with the creation of the new 10% bracket, every person paying income taxes has received a tax cut. With respect to the other side of the class warfare argument, the top 1% now pays a slightly greater share of the overall tax burden than before.

More mendacity: Bilmore's source restricts the question to "income taxes," but that's not what Kerry said, is it?

Kerry stated flatly, “I have a plan to cover all Americans.” The nonpartisan Lewin Group (which was cited by Bush) calculated that Kerry’s plan would cover only 25.2 million out of 45 million uninsured Americans. As President Bush noted during the debate, the Lewin Group also found that the 10-year price tag would be $1.2 trillion, roughly double the cost estimated by the Kerry camp—which would cover barely half the number of people Kerry claims it would.

I don't know the details of Kerry's plan, so RT has my proxy on the first part of this one. On the second, I note only that Bush seemed to think that Kerry's plan involved providing health care to all, gratis, so perhaps he's not the most credible source on which to base an empirical attack on it?

· Without batting an eyelash, a dour Kerry pronounced, “Health-care costs for the average American have gone up 64 percent.” Except, they haven’t. It’s not entirely clear what constitutes “health care costs,” but it is clear that health insurance premiums have not risen anywhere near that amount. The worst-case statistic, as calculated by the ultra-liberal Families USA (an organ of Big Labor), health insurance premiums have risen by 36 percent since 2000.

If bilmore's source doesn't understand what Kerry was saying, how can he debunk it? Perhaps by addressing health-insurance premiums instad of costs?

· Pulling a page from the Clinton handbook, Kerry said, “Five million Americans have lost their health insurance in this country.” In fairness to Kerry, this is an accurate statistic—but also incredibly misleading. Because of population growth, the percentage of the population that is uninsured is the same as it was in 1996 (15.6%), and below the level it was in 1998 (16.3%).

Is it not odd that the inconvenient fact of population appears down here in the discussion of health-care coverage to mitigate the number of people losing health care, but is ignored up above in the discussion of jobs?

Is it not odd that this author said nothing about the percentage of the population that was uninsured in 2000? Is Kerry running against Bill Clinton?

· Although not challenged by Bush afterward, Kerry threw out an eye-popping—and entirely fictional—figure. The Massachusetts liberal, when discussing the provision in the Medicare prescription drug bill that prohibits the federal government from negotiating with the drug companies, charged that this would cause a “$139 billion windfall profit to the drug companies coming out of your pockets.” The accountants behind the Academy Awards, Price Waterhouse Coopers, found that the impact on drug companies’ profits would be negligible or even negative.

Can anyone say with a straight face that preventing the government from negotiating with drug companies might cost the drug companies money and in any event won't earn them profits? Can we just call it the Hackitage Foundation?

In rattling off a litany of problems allegedly caused by Bush, Kerry claimed, “tuitions have gone up 35 percent.” Actually, what students pay has gone down. From a June 28 cover story in the right-wing rag USA Today: “What students pay on average for tuition at public universities has fallen by nearly one-third since 1998.”

Did Kerry talk only about public universities? And does anyone here live in a world in which college tuitions have been dropping? (Not in California they haven't.)