So much for Republicans making us safer...

[maxwell's demon]

Wrong again. There was only one way to interpret Kerry's remarks. He SAID, point blank, if you don't get an education or do well in school, you will wind up in Iraq. Period. There's no other way to interpret that. Did he mean what he said? Obviously not, but he STILL said it.

I interpreted Kerry's remarks differently. AS i stated twice, i had to RE-read the passage in order to even get the White House interpretation. Does that mean you think i'm stupid, or a liar, or both?

 

[Reaper]

another moderate stance, huh?

the dems aren't the ones who were trying to justify something that was obviously wrong by giving away sensitive secrets over the web.

1- Like your a moderate
2- Yeah **** the web, the dems like to hand over our secrets in person

 

[Reaper]

God I hate Bush. What next? Is he accidentally going to invade New York searching for weapons of mass liberalism?

Those weapons do need to be rooted out

And really, if those plans are accurate then Saddam needed to be removed for having them. If the plans are BS than republicans did nothing wrong by airing them. Either way

 

[Matt]

Those weapons do need to be rooted out

And really, if those plans are accurate then Saddam needed to be removed for having them. If the plans are BS than republicans did nothing wrong by airing them. Either way

Sadaam was following the U.N. sanction. He was not allowed to have nuclear weapons. He did not have nuclear weapons.

 

[sinewave]

1- Like your a moderate
2- Yeah **** the web, the dems like to hand over our secrets in person

i've never claimed to be a moderate. i'm a progressive. lazur's the one who claims to be a moderate. why are you butting in on a conversation you know nothing about?

 

[Spider-Bite]

Those weapons do need to be rooted out

And really, if those plans are accurate then Saddam needed to be removed for having them. If the plans are BS than republicans did nothing wrong by airing them. Either way

those documents are 15 years old. there was a time when Saddam had a weapons program. those days were long gone when we invaded Saddam.

the documents said how to build the bomb. and saddam did not have them.

these are not conspiracy theories. they are reality. join it.

reality that is, not the bomb building.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Originally Posted by lazur
Wrong again. There was only one way to interpret Kerry's remarks. He SAID, point blank, if you don't get an education or do well in school, you will wind up in Iraq. Period. There's no other way to interpret that. Did he mean what he said? Obviously not, but he STILL said it.

The prepared text in front of him said something completely different. it was just an accident. he meant to say something completely different. he just got the words jumbled and it came out differently than what the prepared speech text said.

seriously. it was a complete accident, and look how everybody is reacting. HOw many times has bush ****ed up his speeches?


http://youtube.com/watch?v=T32Fu_R6owg

It's not kerry's fault his weren't as funny. if people took Bush's mess ups seriously some would be much more offensive.

 

[Spider-Bite]

for the last few days I've had a serious urge to make a Hate bush thread. where everybody can just come in and let if all out fora few days. not really a debate thread or a specific policy thread. just an outlet for all of our hatred. just come it let the emotion fly and say you hate him, to help you make some kind of peace with it.

I figured that with all the other politics threads making one to simply say how much you hate bush would be considered spam, so I didn't make it. but man I really hate the guy. I wanted to put a poll to see how much everybody hated him. the options would have been

1. blind rage, angry seeing red, despise, loathe, detest, disgust, throw things at the tv when he's on hate
2. extreme hatred
3. really hate him a lot

 

[lazur]

I interpreted Kerry's remarks differently. AS i stated twice, i had to RE-read the passage in order to even get the White House interpretation. Does that mean you think i'm stupid, or a liar, or both?

No, I think that puts you in the minority as a person who believed from the start that he mis-spoke. He said, basically, "If you don't get educated, you will wind up in Iraq", which to me means, "If you don't get an education, you will be forced to join the military and go to Iraq."

I, as did most other people I've talked to, took what he said at FACE value. You, apparently, did not.

 

[Darthphere]

No, I think that puts you in the minority as a person who believed from the start that he mis-spoke. He said, basically, "If you don't get educated, you will wind up in Iraq", which to me means, "If you don't get an education, you will be forced to join the military and go to Iraq."

I, as did most other people I've talked to, took what he said at FACE value. You, apparently, did not.

Majority doesnt equal all lazur, your comment said there was only one way to view it. So in essence you were wrong, but its ok, I dont expect you to admit it.

 

[lazur]

Majority doesnt equal all lazur, your comment said there was only one way to view it. So in essence you were wrong, but its ok, I dont expect you to admit it.

That's becaus there is only one way to interpret it if you take it at face value. Now sure, anyone can interpret anything anyway they want. The sky is blue could mean many shades of blue, but it's still blue. The fact that some people interpreted it differently is merely because some people decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, nothing more.

 

[maxwell's demon]

I never said there was only "one way" of viewing it, did I? No, I said some people interpreted differently.

Sorry Lazur, but

Wrong again. There was only one way to interpret Kerry's remarks. He SAID, point blank, if you don't get an education or do well in school, you will wind up in Iraq. Period. There's no other way to interpret that. Did he mean what he said? Obviously not, but he STILL said it.

c'mon now. you said it.
maybe Darthphere used the word 'view' instead of 'interpret'- but c'mon...

whoah...this is like such a, like, meta-irony moment.


and PS- taking things at Face value is never a good move, ('specially where politics is involved).

 

[lazur]

Sorry Lazur, but



c'mon now. you said it.
maybe Darthphere used the word 'view' instead of 'interpret'- but c'mon...

whoah...this is like such a, like, meta-irony moment.


and PS- taking things at Face value is never a good move, ('specially where politics is involved).

And I changed my reply because I realize I did say that. I was primarily speaking for myself, but it seems the majority also took it a certain way. If you listen to what he said at FACE value, I don't see how else it can be interpreted unless it someone's who's simply giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[maxwell's demon]

and as i said, taking anything anyone says at FACE value, especially out of context, especially in political arenas, is never a good idea.

c'mon now, this is getting ridiculous. You SAID IT. CLEAR AS DAY. whereas Kerry's Comment at least had the ambiguity that MANY people SAW it TWO WAYS---WITHOUT him needing to explain himself on the matter.
And now because you LATER changed what you said you expect everyone to go along with it (simply because you SAY you were primarily speaking for yourself)? And accuse people fo and yet your STILL unwilling to give KERRY the benefit of the doubt? It's not MERE benefit of the doubt in Kerry's case. IT's called contextual understanding.
Anyone who passively accepts "truth" in the form of A.D.D.-media-circus reports, anyone who lets their own views be spun, often, by political tricks deserves little of the benefit of my doubt.

Honestly Lazur? In MY view, YOU, and everyone else who mistook Kerry's statement and tried to crucify him with it, owe HIM an apology. And the WHITE HOUSE owes the TROOPS an apology for WILLFULLY misinterpreting Kerry's statement, taking a local story and making it NATIONAL news, and once again USING the troops for political gain.

The more i see people admit their mistakes, be grown-ups and own up to it, the more beneift of the doubt i'll give them in the future.

 

[sinewave]

I did not misinterpret your remarks. You said the "party" is the problem. You are wrong. Some *in* the party, yes, but not the PARTY itself.

it is a republican party talking point that they are the only party that can keep america safe from terrorists and that the democratic party is "soft on terror", would you agree with that? any republican party member who doesn't feel that way has had every opportunity to speak out against that talking point, but i haven't seen one do that, yet. so therefore, when members of the republican party try to justify the invasion of iraq by posting pre-gulf war nuclear weapons plans on the web, it is then reflecting on the entire party and contradicting their claims to keeping america safe, by making weapons plans available to the very people we are fighting. that's why i say that the party is being hypocritical. i understand it was a decision only involving certain members of the party, but it reflects badly on the entire party and contradicts their message. the party is the problem because it's obvious that since they've been in the majority they haven't been policing themselves very well, judging by all the corruption. and again, i don't see you attacking any republicans on these boards who over-generalize in statements against the democrats, so i'm not buying into your claims of being moderate and objective of both parties. i really don't see why you single me out for that.

Wrong again. There was only one way to interpret Kerry's remarks. He SAID, point blank, if you don't get an education or do well in school, you will wind up in Iraq. Period. There's no other way to interpret that. Did he mean what he said? Obviously not, but he STILL said it.

are you really arrogant enough to proclaim your viewpoint as the only right viewpoint? because there are other ways to interpret kerry's statement, whether you choose to believe it or not.

So do you.

i'll take that as an admittance that you do indeed only hear what you want to hear. i however don't feel i do.

Nope, because I agree with that one statement. On a whole, the "democratic party" is weak on defense. That's one of the trademarks that defines the democratic party just as "big government" defines the republican party. I agree with neither, but can see them none-the-less.

even if certain members weren't directly involved in scandals, the majority of them are guilty of covering up for fellow members or guilty of inaction in the face of corruption. just look at the mark foley case. how many members of the republican party are we finding out were aware of his behavior before it finally came out? or what about holding the administration accountable for awarding no-bid contracts to the likes of haliburton, which basically amounts to supporting war-profiteering. being the majority, they have the power to investigate and put an end to many cases of corruption, but they choose not to rock the boat or draw attention to those instances out of loyalty to their party. therefore, i stick by my claim that the republican party is corrupt. you can view that as me calling all republicans corrupt, but that's not my intent. i'm simply drawing attention to the fact that there's so much corruption in that party that they are being defined by it at this point, regardless of the many law-abiding and decent members of the party that have no part in the scandals. you may come back and respond with something like "democrats are just as corrupt", but their record says otherwise and they've been very vocal about removing members of the party that are embroiled in scandals, such as the william jefferson case.

Whatever, man. As you said to me, you see what you want to see/hear what you want to hear.

by saying "whatever man", you're failing to acknowledge the point i was making that you do not comment on people who post over-generalized, negative statements about the democratic party, despite your claims of being an objective moderate. i felt it was a fairly accurate statement. do you agree or not? "whatever man" sounds an awful lot like a non-answer or "dodge". i fail to see what "seeing what i want to hear or see" has anything to do with you ignoring the very thing you're attacking me for when it happens on the other side of the political spectrum. are you denying that you do that?

Just as when Clinton was in, it *seemed* that the democrats were more corrupt. Perception is reality.

i never said it seemed that the dems were more corrupt when clinton was pres. there's no *seeming* invloved. count the number of scandals and attempted cover-ups since the republican's gained the majority in washington and then compare it to the number of scandals and attempted cover-ups by the democrats of that same time period and you'll see that the republicans have been more corrupt, by far. as i stated above, the entire party is being defined as "the party of corruption" because of all the scandals they've been plagued with. that's a fact.

There's a difference between saying "the republican party is stupid/morons" and "the democratic party is soft on defense". One is an insult and one is a fairly accurate characterization (and also NOT an insult).

but see, you're using an opinion and trying to claim it's something more than that. you percieving the democratic party as being soft on defense is no more accurate than saying that the republican party is full of morons. if i see them as a party of morons, that doesn't necessarily mean that's true, it only means that's how i see them, which i don't. there are plenty of members of the democratic party who have served proudly in the military and have a great deal of knowledge and experience in the field of military defense. saying the party as a whole is weak on defense is, at best, an over-generalization, which is what you're accusing me of, and at worst, an attempt at propagating a false stereotype based on attributing the actions of certain members of the party on the entire party itself. just because the democrats have different ideas on what constitutes having an effective miliitary doesn't mean they are any stronger or weaker on the defense of the country, so you're just assuming that they are actually weaker on defense than the republicans. whether that's actually true or not is highly debatable and in no way a fact.

 

[Darthphere]

So it begins...

 

[Hotwire]

Lazur,

The reason so many people are taing what John Kerry said the wrong way, is because it keeps being replayed the wrong way. If you listen to the entire speech, you will see the context of that one sentence. He was saying a lot of negative things about Bush. The last line was meant to be the "!" at the end. So, in a way your are right, if all you are shown by the "liberal (Yeah, right!!) media" then it is easy to take it the wrong way. But, if you take the whole thing, in context, you would have to be pretty dumb to take it the wrong way. See it wors on you as well. See, you said,

If you don't get an education, you will be forced to join the military and go to Iraq.

So you must have insulted the troops. That's the only way to interpret it.
See, my point is that the fault lies not with John Kerry, but with the people who distort his words.

 

[lazur]

Lazur,

The reason so many people are taing what John Kerry said the wrong way, is because it keeps being replayed the wrong way. If you listen to the entire speech, you will see the context of that one sentence. He was saying a lot of negative things about Bush. The last line was meant to be the "!" at the end.

That may be true. I haven't seen the entire speech.

So, in a way your are right, if all you are shown by the "liberal (Yeah, right!!) media" then it is easy to take it the wrong way. But, if you take the whole thing, in context, you would have to be pretty dumb to take it the wrong way. See it wors on you as well. See, you said,
So you must have insulted the troops. That's the only way to interpret it.
See, my point is that the fault lies not with John Kerry, but with the people who distort his words.

The thing is, though, if Bush had said the exact same thing, you know and I know that those on the left would use it as ammo against him, just as is happening to Kerry by the right today.

 

[tomahawk53]

Majority doesnt equal all lazur, your comment said there was only one way to view it. So in essence you were wrong, but its ok, I dont expect you to admit it.

But in reality there really WAS only one way to view it. At face value. Exactly what he said.

Now I wasn't listening to the speech nor do I read many news reports about politics until something major comes out. Or until something that's minor gets blown way out of proportion then I go and read about it.

So the first thing I read about Kerry's remarks was that it was a botched joke attempt aimed at the president. So I knew going in to it that what he said WASN'T what he actually meant. But after reading it in context and before and after the quote there was (At the time he said it) no OTHER way to take it then either get an education or go to Iraq.

And if you say other wise then you have some psychic liberal powers that can read into things that which were not said. LOL! (sorry I'm on some kick ass cold medicine right now so if I come off loopy that's because I really am!)

 

[maxwell's demon]

but just answer, lazur, point blank- were you wrong when you said there was only one way to view the statment or not?

and tomahawk, i only heard the clip and i STILL viewed it another way.

 

[Hotwire]

The thing is, though, if Bush had said the exact same thing, you know and I know that those on the left would use it as ammo against him, just as is happening to Kerry by the right today.

I doubt that. He's said plenty of things that they have not pounced on. The one that comes to mind was when Bush was giving a press confrence about Iraq when he was asked, "What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?" His response was, "Nothing." Now, here it was, the sound bite to end all. Bush himself saying that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Yet, when they tried to sell the war in Iraq, they used this connection numerous time. The democrats did nothing with it.

 

[Hotwire]

But in reality there really WAS only one way to view it. At face value. Exactly what he said.

Now I wasn't listening to the speech nor do I read many news reports about politics until something major comes out. Or until something that's minor gets blown way out of proportion then I go and read about it.

So the first thing I read about Kerry's remarks was that it was a botched joke attempt aimed at the president. So I knew going in to it that what he said WASN'T what he actually meant. But after reading it in context and before and after the quote there was (At the time he said it) no OTHER way to take it then either get an education or go to Iraq.

And if you say other wise then you have some psychic liberal powers that can read into things that which were not said. LOL! (sorry I'm on some kick ass cold medicine right now so if I come off loopy that's because I really am!)

If hearing it in context, and not seeing it as a stab at Bush, you have some psychic republican powers that read into things that WERE said, in order to find the worng meaning. Think about it. If someone where talking to you about, let's say, your least favorite coworker. They are making negative statements, one right after another, about ths guy. Then they end with a final stab that is missing ONE WORD. Hearing the whole thing in context, you would automatically put that last bit with the others. But take it out of context, and suddenly it takes on new meaning.

 

[tomahawk53]

and tomahawk, i only heard the clip and i STILL viewed it another way.

How? Was that the only part of the speech you heard or did you listen to the whole thing?

But as Mal'Akai pointed out maybe if one heard the entire speech they would have known. But just to read his quote I honestly don't see how people would have known that he meant it about GWB.

 

[tomahawk53]

If hearing it in context, and not seeing it as a stab at Bush, you have some psychic republican powers that read into things that WERE said, in order to find the worng meaning. Think about it. If someone where talking to you about, let's say, your least favorite coworker. They are making negative statements, one right after another, about ths guy. Then they end with a final stab that is missing ONE WORD. Hearing the whole thing in context, you would automatically put that last bit with the others. But take it out of context, and suddenly it takes on new meaning.

Do you honestly think that any of the white house republicans heard the speech in it's entirety?

Let's say you read something wrote on a dry erase board at work and you know the guy that wrote it doesn't like you. But on the board he's talking bad about something else completely. Would you know that it was about you? Like it says 'The bathrooms here don't work'...but instead of talking about the bathrooms he meant you. But if you had heard his entire report he was equating you to the bathrooms but that part got left out.

All I'm saying is that if you only READ the quote how in the world can you know he was talking about GWB?


EDIT - Like I stated before I didn't hear about this until after it was already out that he messed the joke up. And of course I believe that 100% and know that he was not talking about the troops.

 

[maxwell's demon]

that was the only part of the speech i heard. "Read" is what i should have said -there we go, another colloquialism.
i saw the pull quote, then read the story and head to go and read it again in order to undersand what the Whie House was saying.

and maybe...but the fact is that Lazur said point blank, that there was ONLY ONE WAY to view it. and then when told darthphere called him on it, he tried to say he hadnt said that.

hence the meta meta met-a-ness of irony in this sub-argument.