Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Thank you. I love that cover. And it is the best analogy.

While I'm in a frothy mood this week, I should note that Cheney is an ass for saying what he did. Lord knows this shit shouldn't be part of the political discourse, though "he kept us out of the War" was once a popular slogan of-sorts for someone or other.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
While I'm in a frothy mood this week, I should note that Cheney is an ass for saying what he did. Lord knows this shit shouldn't be part of the political discourse, though "he kept us out of the War" was once a popular slogan of-sorts for someone or other.

Hello

Does no one actually read what he said? Is everyone satisfied to make do with the snips?

He didn't say "IF he wins, THEN we'll get hit."

He said "IF he wins, and we get hit again (and we will), THEN Kerry will treat this as a police matter, and we're screwed because of that."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Your tattered syntax makes it hard to be sure of this, so I would like a confirmation. Did you just actually say that Clinton was responsible for 9/11?

Well, no. My claiming credit as having said that which history makes clear, and that which 70% of the American public recognizes would be somewhat pompous.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
A.) If he wrote it, he wrote it years after the fact.

Cite, please. Even this slam on Kerry and Brinkley from Glenn Reynolds (quoting a WaPo article) quotes Brinkley's book as saying that Kerry "did not keep diaries in these weeks in February and March 1969 when the fighting was most intense," and futher adds that Brinkley took some passages from a book proposal Kerry wrote in 1971.

B.) We know he lied about the previously asserted aspects.

You're like a pit bull with that, huh?

C.) The diaries aren't public, so we don't even *know* shit about what he wrote (which was written years after the fact, if at all).

As I said, Brinkley is no hack, and I'm willing to take his word for it.

D.) And we are taking his biographer/campaign spokesman's word on this.

Biographer, yes. Campaign spokesman, no. You seem to think it's "outlandish" to accept a university professor's description of source documents. Um, right. Impeach Brinkley if you will, but you'd better find something better than "he wrote a book about Kerry" and "he's going to vote for Kerry" 'cuz neither makes taking his word "outlandish."

Kerry has been saying for years that he was in Cambodia. Years before that, he wrote in his diaries that he was in Cambodia. It's not like anyone cares, except that you guys are trying so hard to prove that he's lying. Unclear to me why you are so rabid on this point, but I suspect it has something to do with the military's problems with the anti-war folks in the late 60s and early 70s.

Here our country is in a war in Iraq, with our soldiers dying every day, and no one wants to talk about it -- we'd all rather talk about where John Kerry was on December 24, 1968, and which strings were pulled so that Bush could fly (and then not fly) F-102s over the Gulf of Mexico a few years later. Iraq is sublimated into this decades-old fight about Vietnam.

Military types clearly think that we lost in Vietnam because people like Kerry criticized the war back home. Maybe they should entertain the thought that we lost because the war was so unpopular that people like Bush and Cheney would do their level best to duck combat. At least Kerry took fire before he opened his mouth. Bush blew his service off, and now he's sending soldiers who don't have the political connections he had to fight and die in Iraq. The second part of that last sentence is the real story.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Translation:Ty's getting worried that the $160 is money he's spent, and Ty Jr. need new shoes.

Its time for those of us who love Ty despite his shortcomings to stand up. I am willing to cover $20 of Ty's loss. AG? SAM? the rest?

I've been trying to contribute for a long time, but hate Paypal. I'll cover $40.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well, no. My claiming credit as having said that which history makes clear, and that which 70% of the American public recognizes would be somewhat pompous.

Congrats. You've now uttered the second stupidest thing I've ever seen posted here. You'd have done better by claiming to be too drunk too remember what you said.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Congrats. You've now uttered the second stupidest thing I've ever seen posted here. You'd have done better by claiming to be too drunk too remember what you said.

Did your post just miss the deadline, or is it no. 1?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Does no one actually read what he said? Is everyone satisfied to make do with the snips?

He didn't say "IF he wins, THEN we'll get hit."

He said "IF he wins, and we get hit again (and we will), THEN Kerry will treat this as a police matter, and we're screwed because of that."

Actually, according to CNN (direct quote from an article):

>>"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.

"And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."<<

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Does no one actually read what he said? Is everyone satisfied to make do with the snips?

He didn't say "IF he wins, THEN we'll get hit."

He said "IF he wins, and we get hit again (and we will), THEN Kerry will treat this as a police matter, and we're screwed because of that."

And Gore didn't say he "invented the Internet," he said that he helped get funding to the projects in DoD that led to it.

What Cheney precisely said was:

Cheney, in Des Moines on Tuesday, delivered the campaign's message that the United States would be safer in Bush's hands with cutting-torch directness, saying, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, that we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again."

He continued, "That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."

Though this is what people attending the event heard, and what by all accounts Cheney wanted to say, the weak-kneed pussies at BC'04 felt compelled to change the transcript.

In a change that highlighted the sensitivity of Cheney's statement, the White House yesterday released a revised version of the transcript of his remarks. The official transcript, posted on the White House Web site Tuesday afternoon and e-mailed to reporters, said: "(I)t's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again."

In a version released Tuesday to reporters traveling with Cheney, however, the period at the end of "hit again" was removed and replaced with a comma, which linked his blunter statement to his standard stump language expressing concern that future attacks would be treated as "just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war."

Of this post hoc wordsmithing, even Clinton would be proud.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Of this post hoc wordsmithing, even Clinton would be proud.

Cheney flip-flopped!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
What Cheney precisely said was:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney, in Des Moines on Tuesday, delivered the campaign's message that the United States would be safer in Bush's hands with cutting-torch directness, saying, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, that we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again."

He continued, "That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what throws me:

You post this, and tell me that "this is precisely what Cheney said'.

But, your version has this narration in it that makes for a pause and a seeming end-of-discrete-statement - to wit - A para break, followed by "He continued . . . "

I listened. I didn't hear him say "he continued". I didn't hear tha pause. I heard it as a run-on sentence.

I think you have to add this to get the menaing you want to claim.

[Gattigap]

AdL tells us on the FB that we can now bid on a paintball gatling gun.



But wait, one might think. Though configured for paintballs, this thing could conceivably be considered an assault weapon. Isn't that illegal?

Good news! It's not anymore! So, if a paintball gatling gun isn't really your cup of tea, rest comfortably in the knowledge that you can now go buy those automatic and semiautomatic weapons whose manufacture has been banned for a decade. This message has been brought to you by a Republican Administration and Republican Congress. Happy hunting!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
. . . rest comfortably in the knowledge that you can now go buy those automatic and semiautomatic weapons whose manufacture has been banned for a decade.

I always figure a position that can only be defended dishonestly is a dishonest position.

The AW ban has nothing to do with automatic weapons. It has to do with weapons that LOOK scary.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know Jesus some, and JFK is no Jesus. I'll back off if AG disagrees but otherwise, I think this misses.