RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Mormon President?

Well then you need to go back and see what I posted.



keywords being "manufactured controversy". It was a lie. He never said that. But as is th wont of liars, it sure gets repeated enough as if it were fact, that the old adage about telling a lie often enough sort of comes to pass.

If you truly seek truth and not just more right wing lies and smear, then it'd be good to take Ray's advice and look it up.

Al Gore and The Internet

Al Gore "invented the Internet" - resources

Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology Wikipedia

and last but not least, the snopes.com piece.

Internet Of Lies

But see, I KNOW I've posted the snopes.com one before and that still doesn't stop you from repeating the erroneous assertion that Al Gore said he invented the internet..

So IMO it's just pathological in the need to pass lies off as fact about Al Gore.

I realize that adherants to the Global Warming religion do not take kindly to any criticism of their Lord High Algore but the simple fact of the matter is that you brought up the Gore comparison. Further, it appears that the comparison was made in no small part to try and portray anyone who criticized Gore, but not Romney, as a hypocrite.

I responded to it and noted that, in fact, I thought Romney's exaggerations were unseemly.

Can we get back to Romney now or would will you next be posting about how Gore really was the inspiration for the Ryan O'Neill character in "Love Story"?

you need to stop hating Gore for being more respected than bush is. it seems really insecure. maybe you should co-found wondy's little club.

Oh no!!!

G-Man thinks global warming is a religion!!!!!!!

And he thinks Al Gore is a high priest.

Back in the day, they'd lock you up for being so delusional.

Sure, whomod, it's not a like a religion to you. That's why you're making jokes that imply imprisonment for heresy, ala a medievil Pope.

But, anyway, getting back to Romney (cause, you know, he's the subject of the thread, and all):

• It's looking like Mitt Romney might have been judged too quickly on the Martin Luther King business. Two witnesses have now come forward to The Politico, insisting that they saw the late Gov. George Romney (R-MI) make a surprise appearance alongside King in 1963.
  
  The campaign has also posted a collection of citations — including a contemporary account from the Detroit Free Press — attesting that it happened.
  
  There's one lingering question, though: If the facts do vindicate Mitt Romney on this one — and at first glance, this looks legit — why did he handle it so awkwardly and ineptly right off the bat? Why all the parsing about what the word "saw" meant, and the business about "march with" being figurative?

What does the judge say when you try to slime your way out of one thing by trying to reframe the original comment into something else entirely?

or are you just slow in reading comprehension? Where in the hell did you pick up heresy from anyways?? The keyword was DELUSIONAL. As in mental illness. Because you think Al Gore is a high priest.

It's sad when you need to spell it out in child's words..

whomod, you claim to be an intelligent person. You also seem capable of recognizing sarcasm when you see it.

As such, I'm sure that you know I don't literally believe that Gore is a Priest. I also believe that you realize I was referring to the tendency of certain people (yourself included) to deify the man and treat the theory of global warming with the level of faith and reverence normally reserved for religous doctrine.

Accordingly, the idea of you calling me delusional for a belief I obviously do not hold is very specious. Furthermore, the hint of locking me up for a belief, given my earlier sarcasm regarding your devotion to Gore, seemed to ironic to ignore, given its similarity to the point I was trying to make with my sarcasm.

Again, however, this thread is not about Gore. It's about Romney. And your need (and Ray's need) to fight the same old argument about whether or not Gore claimed to have invented the internet is a little tiresome (I was going to compare it to proselityzing but I worry you would pretend to understand metaphor either).

Um.. heloo?

You're the one who again asserted and repeated that he actually said it. I just brought it up in passing and you couldn't resist repeating the lie as fact.

So tell me again, did Al Gore say he invented the internet? You still sound as if it's a matter of debate?

I usually bring up the Swifboat attacks on John Kerry(or G-Man's oft repeated claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet) as an example of the disgusting tactics used to smear people for political gain by Republican operatives that was perfected by Lee Atwater, Karl Rove’s mentor. It’s just as bad (but sort of funny) when the Republicans do it to themselves.




(click for larger image)


P.S. the Virgin Mary reportedly is exceedingly fair and WHITE.

Wonder Boy and Pariah might appreciate that.

"The source of the card is unknown..."

So it could have come from a Democrat.
It would be consistent with Hillary Clinton's political tactics, and her many unclaimed attacks on Obama, that even the liberal media says came from her campaign.

When you mention swiftboat ads, you might also mention the Swiftboating by Dan Rather and the rest of liberal media, if not complicit Democrats, when they attacked Bush with a forged letter allegedly from Bush's National Guard commanding officer, just 2 weeks before the 2004 election.

Or Al Gore's, Jesse Jackson's, Al Sharpton's and other Democrats' cultivating fear and splitting the nation along ethnic lines with allegations of racism in the 2000 election, along with other conspiracy theories, to scapegoat their losses in 2000 and 2004 onto Ralph Nader, George W. Bush, and others.

Or exposure of the Mark Foley scandal on October 2006, barely 2 weeks before the election (an interesting pattern for the liberal media, in 2004 and 2006). A story Democrats and the liberal media had known about for roughly a year, but chose that precise moment to unleash on the Republicans.
Funny how swiftboating the Republicans in far more questionable circumstances doesn't even raise the slightest blip on your sense-of-fairness meter.

On the subject of the Swiftboat ads, I think it was fair game, since Kerry opened the door by attacking Bush's National Guard record, and Kerry would often condemn the Swiftboat attacks on his record, and then attack Bush's military record in the same breath. If it's fair for Kerry, then it's fair for Bush to respond.

The Democrats engage in these attacks.

And the Democrats do it to themselves. Just ask Howard Dean.


And one last thing...




Wow. Blasphemy and slander in hardly more than a sentence.

Again, I have friends of virtually every race and ethicity.
I socialize, personally and professionally, on pretty much a daily basis, with friends and associates of virtually every nationality. I've never advocated a white-only America as you repeatedly/slanderously allege.

I've repeatedly said that anyone, of any race, is welcome in America, so long as they assimilate into our English-speaking American culture, as every other generation of immigrants has, until now.
I'm no more racist than George Washington, Ben Franklin, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy, who all held the same standard.

But I know you have no interest in truth, as you knowingly and repeatedly slander your opposition, with words you know to be lies.
A tactic that no honest person would ever use.

wow, wondy. the crazy train just keeps on going. you could've said "so it could've come from a democrat." and left it at that. but you had to use liberal as an insult about a dozen times and then dredge up your paranoia from 8 years ago.
You honestly can't seem to get your head off of the liberal war you're into.
weird.

but i actually doubt a democrat did this. at this point all attention is on the primaries. i have no doubt there are dirty tricks going on, but right now it's logically (on both sides) within the party.
except for the countless insults and slurs used against hillary by the republican candidates. but even then, it's more for the joke than to smear.

does ron paul count?

no. Ron Paul is very old school republican. from before Reagan came in and corrupted the party.

I tend to agree. While it's possible that a democrat might want to start "sowing the seeds" for opposing Romney if he's the nominee, given that his nomination is by no means certain, doing this could be a big waste of money.

With that being said, there's also a distinct possibility that a particular candidate didn't order this but that one of the myriad independent political groups is behind it.

Either way, my money's on either Huckabee or one of the independent groups supporting him.

Huckabee does seem kind of evil. And he's the only other Republican who has religion as a real issue so I can see him playing on that.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him "evil" but he clearly has a record attacking Romney's religion. Furthermore, he's got the most to gain by beating Romney in Iowa.

How is posting a picture of the man in which he sorta resembles Tom "Happy Days" Bosley at all relevant to his evilness or lack thereof?

What a surprise, a right winger with no concept of what true evil is.

I bet if he was having sex or speaking his mind you'd think he was Skeletor.

I've been very clear that I don't like Huckabee at all. Go to the thread about him if you need confirmation of that fact.

I still don't understand why Ray posted that particular picture during our discussion however.

When buildings are bombed by terrorists, there is a reason people immediately assume it's done by radical islamists. Same with Lee Atwater/Karl Rove style smear jobs. It's an established M.O. with the far right. G-man also makes good points which you probably won't immediately dismiss as coming from Moscow or something similarly archaic and and dated.



While CBS and Rather did a piss poor job of evaluating the authenticity of the document, Marion Knox, the 86 year old former secretary was found who also said the document was fake. She did however say she remembered doing a similar document with roughly the same information in it. She also said Bush was unfit to serve as President and was selected, not elected.

So much for "swift boating". When the secretary who typed up the documents says the documents were fake but the INFO was spot-on. Sounds like a classic Rove deflection/distraction tactic to me. (see Rove bugging his own HQ and accusing the Democrats).



Willie Horton

Welfare queen

Southern strategy

Lee Atwater

Although if you read the Lee Atwater entry, he did come to an epiphany after discovering he had cancer and publicly apologized for the deplorable tactics he used to discredit and destroy people for the Republican Party. Karl Rove and his ilk have yet to have a similar pang of conscience.



Uh huh.

It was a Republican aide who came forward first. And the Republicans knew about it for much longer. hence the resignation of Dennis Hastert. You forgot to add that part when you were pointing fingers at the evil liberals.



Of course you think it's fair game. Was it also far game the way they attacked Max Cleland? "Support the troops" all right. Jut so long as they ain't liberal. if so then they're "fair game".



Howard Dean? The chairman of the DNC? Why?

Halo82 User Slayer of Conservatives
400+ posts Thu Jan 03 2008 10:14 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Mormon President?

Jason E. Perkins Moderator 15000+ posts Thu Jan 03 2008 10:34 PM Viewing a list of posts
Forum: Media

rex User daffy asshole
15000+ posts Thu Jan 03 2008 10:37 PM Viewing list of forums

Yup.

Point of information: Cleland was a sitting member of congress who was criticized for his record. He was not attacked for being a former member of the military or for his disability.

I'm a little surprised, whomod, that you are advocating for a system in which we can't criticize our elected officials if they have military experience. That sounds a bit like you're advocating for some sort of "junta."

If you weren't so liberal-partisan, acting like Republicans are the only ones who launch negative campaigns, when Democrats consistently launch arguably even more questionable attacks, then maybe I could agree with you.

Yeah, the attack on Romney could have come from another Republican, and at this stage of the campaign, the competing Republicans would have more to gain.

But that doesn't eliminate the possibility that Hillary or Obama or others in the DNC might have done it, to leverage who they want to run against. Hillary has made more than her share of attacks that would be worthy of Lee Atwater's efforts. James Carville. Rahm Emmanuel. None of these guys have any moral high ground over Atwater.
And although Atwaters ads were negative campaigning, I didn't see that any of the points he raised were untrue. Michael Dukakis did let convicted murderer Willie Horton out on furlough to kill again. That was a clear error in judgement by Dukakis, that called into question his character and judgement. And yes, his dangerous liberalism. All Atwater did was point it out. It's not like Atwater, oh, say, forged a letter from his commanding officer or something. He just pointed out the facts, and the ideological schism between liberals and conservatives regarding prison sentences and parole consideration.



Hearsay on something 30 years later on a letter she thinks looks kind of familiar? Give me a break.
THE LETTER WAS FORGED !!
Period. The end.




As I said, an ad campaign that accurately showcased Dukakis' liberalism, and resultant poor judgement.


Reagan's exact statistics were a little off, but they cited several welfare abusers who abused the welfare system in pretty much exactly the way Reagan described in his campaign speech.



Basically, the Southern Strategy is the Republicans shifting strategy to address concerns of the Southern white majority. While it's painted here to be about "race" in the wiki-piece, it's in truth about strong military defense, being tough on crime (as compared to liberals like Dukakis), religious free speech, gay rights, and intrusive liberal social policies that usurp how they want their states run.
Liberals smear this strategy as being about racism, as liberals typically do anything that costs them votes.

No state under the "southern strategy" era has gone back to segregation or Jim Crow laws. Republicans have simply successfully appealed to white southern voters on a number of issues that are important to them. Which liberals have slandered by falsely playing the race card.

And it's not necessarily a real or working Republican strategy, as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both carried a majority of Southern states.

In any case, it is not an example of "Swiftboating".



"Conscience", to you, is apparently his saying something that is of benefit to Democrats.

I don't see you calling for repentance among the dirty-tricksters of the DNC, who I've listed above, across several campaigns, and the list is far from complete.



I don't see that it's proven Republicans knew longer. It was Democrats who exagerrated the significance of it to smear the entire Republican party. There's a difference between accusing the person who is truly at fault, and on innuendo smearing the entire Republican party. Especially when the Democrats looked the other way regarding other Democrats congressmen, including Gerry Studds, who was gay-fucking his teenage intern, was not censured, and was re-elected. Both parties have had sex scandals regarding interns. The republicans resigned. The Democrats defended their man and/or looked the other way, and then had the audacity to accuse Republicans of doing the same.




Becaause it is fair game. Several hundred vets ascribed to what the Swiftvets said about Kerry, including doctors who treated his injuries. A handful supported Kerry. Despite that an overwhelming majority of these vets condemned Kerry, guess who Democrats and the liberal media sided with? That's right, the handful.
And they demonized the guys who were spokespersons in the Swiftboat ads. The political machine cuts both ways. But you try to make it sound like Democrats don't do exactly the things, and worse, that you demonize the Republicans for.




What I was specifically referring to is the 1992 primaries, where Dean was the front runner, and he was bitterly torn down by his fellow Democrat rivals.

You act like something such as Bush attacking McCain has never happened in politics before. You mockingly and gloatingly call it "eating their own", while selectively omitting when Democrats do the exact same thing, to their own, or to the Republicans.
Reagan's son wouldn't shake Carter's hand after the 1980 election, for the things Carter said about Reagan during the campaign.

In addition, Dean more than any Democrat I can recall, has made a lot of vitriolic remarks, expressing his unbridled hatred for all Republicans, especially while he was DNC chairman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland

• VOTE FOR THE IRAQ WAR
  Cleland was one of the 29 Senate Democrats who backed the authorization to go to war in Iraq. He later claimed he had misgivings about the Bush administration's stance, but said he felt pressure in his tight Senate race to go along with it. In 2005, he said "it was obvious that if I voted against the resolution that I would be dead meat in the race, just handing them in a victory." He characterized his vote for war as "the worst vote I cast."[7]
  
  
  POST-SENATE CAREER
  Cleland was originally appointed to serve on the 9/11 Commission but resigned shortly after, claiming that the Bush administration was "stonewalling" and blocking the committee's access to key documents and witnesses. During his time away from politics, Cleland taught at American University.
  
  In 2003, Cleland began working for the 2004 presidential campaign of Massachusetts senator John Kerry, also a Vietnam veteran; Kerry went on to win the Democratic nomination. Cleland often appeared at campaign events with Kerry, and was considered by many to be one of his most important assistants, partly as a symbol of the sacrifices made by soldiers for wars. He went to Bush's Texas ranch to deliver a swift boat ad complaint, but the event failed to have much impact. On July 29, 2004, Cleland introduced Kerry with a speech at the Democratic National Convention.

And a public figure who openly criticized Bush, and publicly campaigned for Kerry in 2004 using his public-figure status, should not be open to public scrutiny and counter-criticism... why?

There is the transcript. Pouting about it and declaring the case closed won't help you.

Out of curiosity, what's your take on Huckabee's alleged involvement in Wayne DuMond's early release?

Does fairness DuMond that Huckabee face the same criticism?

Personally, I don't think either one of 'em should've been released, so I'm not trying to clear Dukakis. I'm just curious what your take on Huckabee's supposed involvement in getting DuMond freed early is.

(I'm looking for a link to a better article about this. Hold off on a reply for now)

Actually, the "attacks" on Cleland that democrats tend to cite were made as part of the 2002 campaign and predate his 2003 and 2004 actions in support of Kerry's presidential bid.

They involved questions about Cleland's national security views:

• a tough anti-Cleland ad [was] broadcast featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad didn't morph Cleland into either of these figures or say that he supported them. It noted at its beginning that the United States faced threats to its security as the screen was briefly divided into four squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled with images of the American military.
  
  It went on to explain that Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland-security bill that would have given President Bush the freedom from union strictures that he wanted in order to set up the new department. The bill was co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague Sen. Zell Miller, a fellow Democrat. Bush discussed details of the bill personally with Cleland, and Chambliss wrote him a letter prior to running his ad urging him to support the Bush version. Cleland still opposed it, setting himself up for the charge that he was voting with liberals and the public-employees unions against Bush and Georgia common sense.
  
  If you can't criticize the Senate votes of a senator in a Senate race, what can you criticize?

So it wasn't even a question of "attacking" Cleland for his support of Kerry. It was a question of people exercising their constitutionally protected right to criticize the voting record of an elected official.

Well in answer to your question, I wasn't referring to attacks on his positions. I was specifically referring to the attack ad that morphed Cleland's face into Osama Bin laden.

Well, you're asking my opinion of Huckabee's parole of a murderer, who then killed two more women.
I think it should disqualify Huckabee and lose him the election.

And I said in a post a few days ago that if I were Huckabee's oponents, I'd be running commercials with the parents of the two murdered girls every 10 minutes on Iowa TV, up until the Iowa caucus.

Releasing a murderer and pressuring the parole board to reluctantly go along with his decision. That manifests a clear lack of good judgement.
It's majorly Hucked up !

Bee thankful I don't sue your ass for schtik-stealing.

(What happened to the annoyed muttering graemlin?)

FrontPage Magazine:

• Cleland’s ... claim, widely echoed by Democrats, is absurd. The ad never morphed bin Laden’s face into Cleland’s nor accused him of serving al-Qaeda. The ad merely connected this terrorist’s image (in the same brief frame with the face of Saddam Hussein and two images of American soldiers) to the terrorist horror of 9/11 to remind voters that more than union privilege and power was at stake.

The Myth of Max Cleland

• the commercial from Cleland's Republican opponent (now senator) Saxby Chambliss did no such thing. (You can watch the actual ad here.) Over montage of four photographs, one each of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, two others of the U.S. military, a narrator reads: "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead." That's hardly "linking him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden."

You're right. It wasn't "morphed".



The idea was there though.

If, by "idea" you mean that Cleland's voting record showed him to be soft on national security, yes. But isn't that a valid issue in a campaign?

Again, the implication here seems to be that Cleland's military record, commendable as it was, somehow means that his voting record can't be criticized. If so, that's a scary proposition, the idea that we would forgo our right to free speech when elected officials have ties to the military.

I don't mind negative ads that underline the opponents record. Nor do I mind if they happen to attack a veteran.

What i mind is cheap shots. Remember the MoveOn.org ads with Bush and Hitler? Tell me that was fine by you. Putting cleland, a veteran who lost limbs for his country with the company of Osama Bin laden and Sadaam Hussein was cheap and deplorable. Just as you'd probably think if we put Bush and Hitler together in a Democratic ad.

The ad didn't put him "in the company" of Bin Laden and Hussein. It didn't state or even imply that he supported them or otherwise wished them to succeed. It criticized his votes on certain issues, largely (the ad alleged) because he was paying political favors to some union interests. So, if anything, it put him "in the company" of unions and/or special interests.

I like both Huckabee and Romney. But I wouldn't vote for Huckabee, and I'm unsure of Romney. On Charlie Rose on PBS, I saw N Y Times writer David Brooks give a nice perspective on all the candidates, post-Iowa.
Regarding a debate exchange, he related Huckabee said to Romney: "I look like the guy people work with, you look like the guy who lays them off."

I thought that was a terrific line.

Despite his flaws, Huckabee definitely appeals to the blue-collar lower-middle-class working man, and that line contrasted well himself with the (perceived) relatively distant and well-monied Romney.

It was pointed out that some of the heat from the other candidates, such as McCain and Huckabee, might stem from their resentment that Romney has a well-funded campaign (partly from his own personal fortune), while they have very limited campaign war-chests and have to struggle for every dollar.