Schadenfreude style = Post a graphic and a link, sometimes copy-and-paste a quote. Then feign righteous indignation and claim a victory for your side.

<a href='http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/images/infographicfull.jpg' target='_blank'></a>

<a href='http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001759.html#001759' target='_blank'>http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/00...759.html#001759</a>

Or

The DNC is boasting about <a href='http://www.democrats.org/wvc/weekinreview/200305120002.html' target='_blank'>partnering with these 527s</a> (scroll to the bottom of the link, just above Quote of the Week):

Quote:The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization. On Wednesday, May 14, join us by calling and emailing your representatives in Congress to let them know that the majority of Americans oppose more irresponsible tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest sliver of Americans.

The Democrats. What a bunch of hypocrites.

You guys are getting way too worked up about the question of links.

To me, the important point is how the Swift Boat Veterans for Smearing Kerry keep contradicting their own past statements and practically all the documentary evidence.

In other words, they are lying.

You guys keep avoiding that little problem. That's why you keep trying to make this argument about links and ties and Democratic-leaning 527s are doing.

I've made one point: This is the worst television smear ever aired in an American presidential campaign.

No one is even *trying* to rebut that.

Schadenfreude Wrote:You guys are getting way too worked up about the question of links.

To me, the important point is how the Swift Boat Veterans for Smearing Kerry keep contradicting their own past statements and practically all the documentary evidence.

In other words, they are lying.

You guys keep avoiding that little problem. That's why you keep trying to make this argument about links and ties and Democratic-leaning 527s are doing.

I've made one point: This is the worst television smear ever aired in an American presidential campaign.

No one is even *trying* to rebut that.

You didn't make a point. You stated an opinion. It is your personal belief that it is "the worst television smear ever aired in an American presidential campaign."

I disagree. There you go. There's your rebuttal.

You know, a lot of this could very easily go away if Kerry would release his military records including his medical records. Don't start the "Bush won't do it, so why should Kerry" crap. Bush signed the form and it is on file. Kerry hasn't. If he has nothing to hide then he should be completely forthcoming.

That is typical for you. You brought up the "the question of links" in your "Surrogate Liars" thread, but when someone points out the hypocrisy of your position, then they are "getting way too worked up about the question of links." You answer hypocrisy with more hypocrisy. It is laughable.

527's are 10X worse than soft dollar contributions. At least the candidate campaigns are accountable for the ads with soft dollar money. With 527's Kerry has not spent a dime of his General election fund, but will match Bush dollar for dollar while Bush spends the balance of his Primary war chest raised through traditional channels.


I still say celebrities should not be allowed to actively campaign for a candidate ala Bon (I’m a has been) Jovi, Ben (I’ll sell you insurance) Afflack, et. al. Why should they be allowed to contribute their time which typically a few hours would exceed the $2,000 campaign limit. Talk about soft dollars from soft head, liberal, poorly educated arrogant individuals .

ccs178 Wrote:It is your personal belief that it is "the worst television smear ever aired in an American presidential campaign."

I disagree. There you go. There's your rebuttal.

Which one is it that you figure is worse?

Quote:That is typical for you. You brought up the "the question of links" in your "Surrogate Liars" thread, but when someone points out the hypocrisy of your position, then they are "getting way too worked up about the question of links."

"Surrogate" may have been the wrong word to use, but I was worked up after reading that story. In my defense, Bill Moyers used the same word on PBS the other night.

The Kerry campaign has filed a complaint with the FEC. We'll see if they can demonstrate true surrogacy.

This post, incidentially, is far more than I ever said in that other thread about the question of ties and links. Aside from the headline, this is all I said:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:It is your personal belief that it is "the worst television smear ever aired in an American presidential campaign."

I disagree. There you go. There's your rebuttal.

Which one is it that you figure is worse?

The MoveOn.org Hitler ads are much, much worse than anything put out by the President's campaign, anybody supporting the President's campaign or anybody who has put ads out against Kerry.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:That is typical for you. You brought up the "the question of links" in your "Surrogate Liars" thread, but when someone points out the hypocrisy of your position, then they are "getting way too worked up about the question of links."

"Surrogate" may have been the wrong word to use, but I was worked up after reading that story. In my defense, Bill Moyers used the same word on PBS the other night.

The Kerry campaign has filed a complaint with the FEC. We'll see if they can demonstrate true surrogacy.

This post, incidentially, is far more than I ever said in that other thread about the question of ties and links. Aside from the headline, this is all I said:

Your silence speaks volumes. Not being capable of defending your post in that thread isn't something to be proud of.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:527's are 10X worse than soft dollar contributions. At least the candidate campaigns are accountable for the ads with soft dollar money. With 527's Kerry has not spent a dime of his General election fund, but will match Bush dollar for dollar while Bush spends the balance of his Primary war chest raised through traditional channels.

Bush outspent Gore in 2000, $186 million to $120 million. That gave Bush a huge advantage. For every dollar Gore was able to spend, Bush was able to spend $1.55.

(And with an extra $66 million to spend, I've got to think Gore could have squeezed a few hundred more votes out of New Hampshire or Florida).

This year Bush has outraised Kerry $229 million to $187 million. It's closer, but Bush still has a 22 percent advantage.

The three major 527s -- Americans Coming Together, the Media Fund and Moveon.org -- Media Fund -- have raised about $64 million.

That closes the gap. In fact, it puts the pro-Kerry camps ahead by about 10 cents on the dollar.

And that seems roughly fair. Bush has had four years of incumbency to raise his profile, so he already has a natural advantage.

Also, it isn't like Kerry gets to precisely control the work of these 527s.

We have a defacto two-party system. In light of that reality, I think it would be nice if the Democrats and Republicans were always able to match each other dollar for dollar. That's the hallmark of fairness.

It seems to be playing out that way this year much more than it did in 2000.

If you want to argue that Kerry's 10 percent advantage isn't fair, then that's fine. I won't argue too hard.

But no way that's more unfair than the 22 percent advantage Bush would have without these 527s -- or the 55 percent advantage he had in 2000.

So folks urging me to make a blanket denouncement of 527s aren't going to get one from me.

ccs178 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:It is your personal belief that it is "the worst television smear ever aired in an American presidential campaign."

I disagree. There you go. There's your rebuttal.

Which one is it that you figure is worse?

The MoveOn.org Hitler ads are much, much worse than anything put out by the President's campaign, anybody supporting the President's campaign or anybody who has put ads out against Kerry.

I said "aired."

That never hit the air.

Quote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:That is typical for you. You brought up the "the question of links" in your "Surrogate Liars" thread, but when someone points out the hypocrisy of your position, then they are "getting way too worked up about the question of links."

"Surrogate" may have been the wrong word to use, but I was worked up after reading that story. In my defense, Bill Moyers used the same word on PBS the other night.

The Kerry campaign has filed a complaint with the FEC. We'll see if they can demonstrate true surrogacy.

This post, incidentially, is far more than I ever said in that other thread about the question of ties and links. Aside from the headline, this is all I said:

Your silence speaks volumes. Not being capable of defending your post in that thread isn't something to be proud of.

We are talking about one word. "Surrogate." I backed away from it. And here you are, pissing all over me for it.

Read the thread again. I used the word "surrogate" in the headline. Aside from that, every post I made was strictly about the credibility of the ad. And I stand by all that.

Schadenfreude Wrote:In other words, they are lying.

Was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:In other words, they are lying.

Was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas?

I don't know. I know Bush wasn't.

I also know this: The Cambodia question wouldn't make much of a campaign commercial.

Kerry also said Nixon was President in 1968. I'm sure you consider this a "regrettable error"-but clearly, this was an early example of an attempt to make Vietnam all about Nixon, when it was actually LBJ's unilateral wet dream.

And hey, since you say the Swifties are liars for "contradicting previous statements" what does that make John Fauntleroy Kerry?

Friday, April 16, 2004
John Kerry's Flip Flops

Flip Flopped On Trade With China

In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.

Schadenfreude Wrote:I don't know. I know Bush wasn't.

Lame dodge.

The answer is no, he wasn't.

Did Kerry claim to be? I'll save you the trouble of looking, yes he did.

He claimed that memory was "seared" into him. He now has a new memory of those events so apparently it wasn't "seared" as much as he thought.

He lied, and the Swift Boat Vets exposed it.

And no amount of deflection, lies or lame attempts to make Bush the subject by you will change that fact.

You cannot defend Kerry on this point, you should not embarrass yourself by trying.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:I don't know. I know Bush wasn't.

Lame dodge.

The answer is no, he wasn't.

So?

BearcatCarl Wrote:Kerry also said Nixon was President in 1968. I'm sure you consider this a "regrettable error

No. Actually, I think it's an innocent mistake.

Kerry returned stateside in April, 1969. Nixon was president. From that point forward, his rage about the grave foreign policy mistake he saw up close and personal was directed at Nixon.

Quote:"-but clearly, this was an early example of an attempt to make Vietnam all about Nixon, when it was actually LBJ's unilateral wet dream.

Fair enough. LBJ killed a lot of kids in his day. He screwed up big time in Vietnam.

A shame you can't see how badly Bush has screwed up in Iraq.

Schadenfreude Wrote:So?

Since your learning skills seem to be very lacking, allow me to spell it out for you AGAIN.

Kerry claimed to be in Cambodia on Christmas. It is a memory he claims to have "seared" into him. (His words).

The swift vet book says he's lying about that, he was not there.

Kerry has now revised his story.

I know you're slow on these things so I'll be blunt, HE LIED.

You can't defend it, you can't dodge it. He lied, and he only changed his story after his lie was exposed.

I know you don't care when your candidate lies, in fact I'm sure you're all for it. Anything to get him elected. However don't come on here and lecture about the truthfullness of others when you yourself will embrace any lie that comes from the mouth of your candidate or the other liberal trash pushers.

Hypocrit.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:It is your personal belief that it is "the worst television smear ever aired in an American presidential campaign."

I disagree. There you go. There's your rebuttal.

Which one is it that you figure is worse?

I will tell you one. Your boy, Michael Moore's advertisements for Fahrenheit 9/11. Those advertisements were reprehensible and full of lies. This is not to even mention the dispicable movie production itself.

I will tell you one. Your boy, Michael Moore's advertisements for Fahrenheit 9/11. Those advertisements were reprehensible and full of lies. This is not to even mention the dispicable movie production itself.

Schadenfreude Posted on Aug 22 2004, 06:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (Ninerfan1 @ Aug 22 2004, 06:27 PM)
QUOTE (Schadenfreude @ Aug 22 2004, 04:38 PM)
In other words, they are lying.

Was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas?

I don't know. I know Bush wasn't.

I also know this: The Cambodia question wouldn't make much of a campaign commercial.


Response-President Bush never claimed to be in Cambodia. Kerry said he was and the event was "seared" in his memory.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:So?

Since your learning skills seem to be very lacking, allow me to spell it out for you AGAIN.

You spelled it out.

I repeat: So?

Who gives a !@#$%%^% whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas?

Since everything else the Swift Boat Veterans for Lying About Kerry is being ripped into shreds, this apparent misstatement is supposed to redeem all the other low blows these jerks are landing on a man who put his life on the line for his country?

Kerry still has shrapnel in his body because of the sacrafices he made in Vietnam -- and these guys are tarring him in an effort to support a a chickenhawk who went AWOL during the awesome duty of keeping Alabama safe from the Viet Cong.

It's a nonissue.

Let me tell you a story:

I'm a big Bowling Green fan. Big fan. Been to a ton of games. Love those boys.

Anyway, I started a thread a few weeks ago on another board to discuss our first Bowling Green football games. I noted that my first game was a 1988 loss to Miami. I remember that game well. It was a beautiful day and a pretty big crowd. In fact, it was the game that made me a fan of Bowling Green and the MAC. Everything clicked that day.

An hour later, I was corrected: Bowling Green and Miami tied that day.

I checked -- and the other guy was right. Bowling Green hadn't lost.

But here is the embarassing part: I had actually been to the game a week earlier against Youngstown State. In fact, I got the chance to watch it in a luxury box with about twelve other students and the university president.

That was my first game. You'd think I'd have remembered it as such, sitting in a luxury box with the university president and all. But I didn't.

Memory is a strange, falliable thing.

The Kerry campaign maintains he was in Cambodia, just not on that particular day. He apparently carries around a lucky hat he got while there.

<a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002005720_cambodia15.html' target='_blank'>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...cambodia15.html</a>

So where is the scandal?

What George Bush has done in Iraq is a scandal.

But this Cambodia "controversy" has no legs. It is mud being flung by people desperate to besmirch Kerry's military record in anyway they can, mostly because they are irrationally embittered about the leadership he showed in trying to put an end to that debacle once he got back stateside.

And it isn't going to work. No one outside of the Bush-walks-on-water crowd cares.

Schadenfreude Wrote:You spelled it out.

I repeat: So?

Who gives a !@#$%%^% whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas?

Oh that's right, I forgot. You don't care if Kerry lies.

Hypocrit.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Bush outspent Gore in 2000, $186 million to $120 million. That gave Bush a huge advantage. For every dollar Gore was able to spend, Bush was able to spend $1.55.

(And with an extra $66 million to spend, I've got to think Gore could have squeezed a few hundred more votes out of New Hampshire or Florida).

This year Bush has outraised Kerry $229 million to $187 million. It's closer, but Bush still has a 22 percent advantage.

The three major 527s -- Americans Coming Together, the Media Fund and Moveon.org -- Media Fund -- have raised about $64 million.

That closes the gap. In fact, it puts the pro-Kerry camps ahead by about 10 cents on the dollar.

And that seems roughly fair. Bush has had four years of incumbency to raise his profile, so he already has a natural advantage.

Why is that a problem? Maybe the people with the money to donate know more than the others. There was a point in this country when you had to own land to vote. Is that bad? I don't think so, those are the people w/ the vested interest to do right.

You're passion for the proletariate is not commendable. It has been demonstrated far too often that people are willing to vote (or take other action) in ways that hurt others, rather than help themselves.

Quote:We have a defacto two-party system. In light of that reality, I think it would be nice if the Democrats and Republicans were always able to match each other dollar for dollar. That's the hallmark of fairness.

That is not fairness. If one party has a majority of supporters, wouldn't you expect them to raise more funds? Why should they be handicapped at each election, even though they are doing well by their constituents?

Your arbitary decision at "equitable" campaign dollars has nothing to do with "fairness".

Your logic is grossly erring.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:Kerry also said Nixon was President in 1968.&nbsp; I'm sure you consider this a "regrettable error

No. Actually, I think it's an innocent mistake.

Kerry returned stateside in April, 1969. Nixon was president. From that point forward, his rage about the grave foreign policy mistake he saw up close and personal was directed at Nixon.

Quote:"-but clearly, this was an early example of an attempt to make Vietnam all about Nixon, when it was actually LBJ's unilateral wet dream.

Fair enough. LBJ killed a lot of kids in his day. He screwed up big time in Vietnam.

A shame you can't see how badly Bush has screwed up in Iraq.

I've spent quite a bit of time posting on my opinion of the mistakes the President has made.

The difference is simply this: where you see scandal, I see honest mistakes being made in the learning process of being a President.

And before you start talking about the human cost of Presidential mistakes...remember, we only need go back to the Clinton years to find examples of a Democratic President making judgment errors that cost American lives.

Do I think Clinton had some sort of seedy agenda? Of course not. He made mistakes, period. Mistakes can be made without some sort of sinister intent.

I'm even willing to cut Kerry some slack in this regard - just admit you made some mistakes, then state your case for President.
But Liberals:

A. Can never admit they make mistakes
B. Are unwilling to admit honest mistakes on the part of their enemies, in this case the President.

It's an untenable position, but I'm enjoying watching you try.